CaSAPI : a system for credulous and sceptical argumentation

We present the CaSAPI system, implementing (a generalisation of) three existing computational mechanisms [8–10] for determining argumentatively whether potential beliefs can be deemed to be acceptable and, if so, for computing supports for them. These mechanisms are defined in terms of dialectical disputes amongst two fictional agents: a proponent agent, eager to determine the acceptability of the beliefs, and an opponent agent, trying to undermine the existence of an acceptable support for the beliefs, by finding attacks against it that the proponent needs to counter-attack in turn. The three mechanisms differ in the level of scepticism of the proponent agent and are defined for (flat) assumption-based argumentation frameworks [3]. Thus, they can serve as decision-making mechanisms for all instances of these frameworks. In this paper we show how they can be used for logic programming, legal reasoning, practical reasoning, and agent reasoning.

[1]  Kenneth A. Ross,et al.  The well-founded semantics for general logic programs , 1991, JACM.

[2]  Carlo Zaniolo,et al.  Partial Models and Three-Valued Models in Logic Programs with Negation , 1991, LPNMR.

[3]  José Júlio Alferes,et al.  Scenario Semantics of Extended Logic Programs , 1993, LPNMR.

[4]  Henry Prakken,et al.  On the relation between legal language and legal argument: assumptions, applicability and dynamic priorities , 1995, ICAIL '95.

[5]  Anand S. Rao,et al.  BDI Agents: From Theory to Practice , 1995, ICMAS.

[6]  Bernhard Nebel,et al.  On the computational complexity of assumption-based argumentation for default reasoning , 2002, Artif. Intell..

[7]  Francesca Toni,et al.  Abstract argumentation , 1996, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[8]  Guillermo Ricardo Simari,et al.  Defeasible logic programming: an argumentative approach , 2003, Theory and Practice of Logic Programming.

[9]  Neophytos Demetriou.  Argumentation with Abduction , 2005 .

[10]  Paul J. Krause,et al.  An Implementation of a Lightweight Argumentation Engine for Agent Applications , 2006, JELIA.

[11]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  Justifying Actions by Accruing Arguments , 2006, COMMA.

[12]  Phan Minh Dung,et al.  Dialectic proof procedures for assumption-based, admissible argumentation , 2006, Artif. Intell..

[13]  Paolo Mancarella,et al.  A dialectic procedure for sceptical, assumption-based argumentation , 2006, COMMA.

[14]  Keith L. Clark,et al.  Ballroom etiquette: A Case Study for Norm-Governed Multi-Agent Systems , 2006, COIN@AAMAS/ECAI.

[15]  Paolo Mancarella,et al.  Computing ideal sceptical argumentation , 2007, Artif. Intell..

[16]  Francesca Toni.  Assumption-Based Argumentation for Epistemic and Practical Reasoning , 2008, Computable Models of the Law, Languages, Dialogues, Games, Ontologies.