argumentation has been shown to be a powerful tool within many fields such as artificial intelligence, logic and legal reasoning. In this paper we enhance Dung’s well-known abstract argumentation framework with explanatory capabilities. We show that an explanatory argumentation framework (EAF) obtained in this way is a useful tool for the modeling of scientific debates. On the one hand, EAFs allow for the representation of explanatory and justificatory arguments constituting rivaling scientific views. On the other hand, (...) different procedures for selecting arguments, corresponding to different methodological and epistemic requirements of theory evaluation, can be formulated in view of our framework. (shrink)

In this paper, we study conditional preferences in abstract argumentation by introducing a new generalization of Dung-style argumentation frameworks (AFs) called Conditional Preference-based AFs (CPAFs). Each subset of arguments in a CPAF can be associated with its own preference relation. This generalizes existing approaches for preference-handling in abstract argumentation, and allows us to reason about conditional preferences in a general way. We conduct a principle-based analysis of CPAFs and compare them to related generalizations of AFs. (...) Specifically, we highlight similarities and differences to Modgil’s Extended AFs and show that our formalism can capture Value-based AFs. Moreover, we show that in some cases the introduction of conditional preferences leads to an increase in computational complexity. (shrink)

Inspired by some logical considerations, the paper proposes a novel perspective on the use of two-players zero-sum games in abstract argumentation. The paper first introduces a second-order modal logic, within which all main Dung-style semantics are shown to be formalizable, and then studies the model checking game of this logic. The model checking game is then used to provide a systematic game theoretic proof procedure to test membership with respect to all those semantics formalizable in the logic. The (...) paper discusses this idea in detail and illustrates it by providing a game for the so-called skeptical preferred and skeptical semi-stable semantics. (shrink)

In his pioneering work on Abstract Argumentation, P.M. Dung set a wide scenario by connecting stable models in Logic and Game Theory to simple Abstract Argumentation Frameworks ( AAF), which are essentially directed graphs in which arguments are represented as nodes, and the attack relation is represented by arrows. From such abstraction and simplicity, it is possible to capture important properties in many different fields. The Stable Marriage ( SM) problem is exactly one of such representable (...) problems. Given two sets of individuals partitioned into men and women, a matching is stable when there does not exist any man-woman match by which both man and woman would be individually better off than they are with the person to which they are currently matched. Stable matchings correspond to stable extensions if an AAF is correctly generated from the given SM problem. In this paper we elaborate on the original formulation by Dung, by also encoding SM problems with ties and incomplete preference lists into AAFs. Moreover, we use Weighted Abstract Argumentation to represent optimality criteria in the optimal extension of SM problems, where some matchings are better than others: criteria may consider only the preference of either men, or women, or a more global view obtained by combining the preferences of both. (shrink)

In this paper we explore the thesis that the role of argumentation in practical reasoning in general and legal reasoning in particular is to justify the use of defeasible rules to derive a conclusion in preference to the use of other defeasible rules to derive a conflicting conclusion. The defeasibility of rules is expressed by means of non-provability claims as additional conditions of the rules.We outline an abstract approach to defeasible reasoning and argumentation which includes many existing (...) formalisms, including default logic, extended logic programming, non-monotonic modal logic and auto-epistemic logic, as special cases. We show, in particular, that the admissibility semantics for all these formalisms has a natural argumentation-theoretic interpretation and proof procedure, which seem to correspond well with informal argumentation. (shrink)

Dung’s abstract argumentation provides us with a general framework to deal with argumentation, non-monotonic reasoning and logic programming. For the extension-based semantics, one of the basic principles is I-maximality which is in particular related with the notion of skeptical justification. Another one is directionality which can be employed for the study of dynamics of argumentation. In this paper, we introduce two new extension-based semantics into Dung’s abstract argumentation, called grounded-like semantics and initial semantics which (...) satisfy the I-maximality and directionality principles. The initial semantics has many good properties and can be expected to play a central role in studying other extension-based semantics, such as admissible, complete and preferred semantics. (shrink)

In 1995, in his seminal paper introducing the abstract argumentation framework, Dung has also established the first relationship between this framework and a logical framework (in this case: logic programming). Since that time, a lot of work have pursued this path, proposing different definitions, uses and exhibiting distinct relationships between argumentation and logic. In this paper, we present a survey of existing works about this topic and more especially those that address the following question: “How logic has (...) been used for capturing various aspects or parts of Dung’s argumentation”. This survey covers many different approaches but is not intended to be totally exhaustive due to the huge quantity of papers in this scope. Moreover, due to the fact that each approach has its own specificities, sometimes antagonistic with the other approaches, and is also justified by its own context of definition or use, the aim of this survey is not to identify one approach as being better than another. (shrink)

Dung’s (1995) argumentation framework takes as input two abstract entities: a set of arguments and a binary relation encoding attacks between these arguments. It returns acceptable sets of arguments, called extensions, w.r.t. a given semantics. While the abstract nature of this setting is seen as a great advantage, it induces a big gap with the application that it is used to. This raises some questions about the compatibility of the setting with a logical formalism (i.e., whether it (...) is possible to instantiate it properly from a logical knowledge base), and about the significance of the various semantics in the application context. In this paper we tackle the above questions. We first propose to fill in the previous gap by extending Dung’s (1995) framework. The idea is to consider all the ingredients involved in an argumentation process. We start with the notion of an abstract monotonic logic which consists of a language (defining the formulas) and a consequence operator. We show how to build, in a systematic way, arguments from a knowledge base formalised in such a logic. We then recall some basic postulates that any instantiation should satisfy. We study how to choose an attack relation so that the instantiation satisfies the postulates. We show that symmetric attack relations are generally not suitable. However, we identify at least one ‘appropriate’ attack relation. Next, we investigate under stable, semi-stable, preferred, grounded and ideal semantics the outputs of logic-based instantiations that satisfy the postulates. For each semantics, we delimit the number of extensions an argumentation system may have, characterise the extensions in terms of subsets of the knowledge base, and finally characterise the set of conclusions that are drawn from the knowledge base. The study reveals that stable, semi-stable and preferred semantics either lead to counter-intuitive results or provide no added value w.r.t. naive semantics. Besides, naive semantics either leads to arbitrary results or generalises the coherence-based approach initially developed by Rescher and Manor (1970). Ideal and grounded semantics either coincide and generalise the free consequence relation developed by Benferhat, Dubois, and Prade (1997), or return arbitrary results. Consequently, Dung’s (1995) framework seems problematic when applied over deductive logical formalisms. (shrink)

Dung’s theory of abstract argumentation provides a unified foundation to knowledge representation and reasoning. It models the acceptability of arguments through their attack and defense relations, a perspective referred to as the attack—defense paradigm shift. While formal argumentation has been conceptualized in terms of argumentation as inference, argumentation as dialogue, and argumentation as balancing, most developments in abstract argumentation have focused on the inference perspective. By contrast, the dialogue perspective remains less explored. (...) In this article, we contribute to bridging this gap by introducing new notions of agent defense, extending abstract argumentation with explicit representations of agents and their roles in defending arguments. These notions account for both individual and collective defense, enabling richer models of multi-agent reasoning. We position our proposal within the literature by comparing it with three existing approaches that extend abstract argumentation with agency: social semantics, agent-reduction semantics, and agent-filtering semantics. Using a principle-based analysis, we evaluate the formal properties of these approaches and the behavioral differences between them. This paper broadens the focus of abstract argumentation from inference-oriented models toward dialogue-oriented and agent-centered perspectives. This aligns with ongoing developments described in the Handbook of Formal Argumentation and the International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA) literature, and contributes to the shift toward modeling complex, interactive reasoning in multi-agent systems. (shrink)

Carneades is a recently proposed formalism for structured argumentation with varying proof standards, inspired by legal reasoning, but more generally applicable. Its distinctive feature is that each statement can be given its own proof standard, which is claimed to allow a more natural account of reasoning under burden of proof than existing formalisms for structured argumentation, in which proof standards are defined globally. In this article, the two formalisms are formally related by translating Carneades into the ASPIC+ framework (...) for structured argumentation. Since ASPIC+ is defined to generate Dung-style abstract argumentation frameworks, this in effect translates Carneades graphs into abstract argumentation frameworks. For this translation, we prove a formal correspondence and show that certain rationality postulates hold. It is furthermore proved that Carneades always induces a unique Dung extension, which is the same in all of Dung's semantics, allowing us to generalise Carneades to cycle-containing structures. (shrink)

We revisit the notion of initial sets by Xu and Cayrol 2016), i. e., non-empty minimal admissible sets in abstract argumentation frameworks. Initial sets are a simple concept for analysing conflicts in an abstract argumentation framework and to explain why certain arguments can be accepted. We contribute with new insights on the structure of initial sets and devise a simple non-deterministic construction principle for any admissible set, based on iterative selection of initial sets of the original (...) framework and its induced reducts. In particular, we characterise many existing admissibility-based semantics via this construction principle, thus providing a constructive explanation on the structure of extensions. We also investigate certain problems related to initial sets with respect to their computational complexity. (shrink)

We provide a logical analysis of Dung’s abstract argumentation frameworks and their dynamics. We express attack relation and argument status by means of propositional variables and define acceptability criteria by formulas of propositional logic, which enables us to formulate the standard reasoning problems in logic. While the approaches in the literature express these problems as Boolean or quantified Boolean formulas, we here take advantage of a variant of Propositional Dynamic Logic \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} (...) \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\mathsf {PDL}$$\end{document}: Dynamic Logic of Propositional Assignments \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\mathsf {DL\text {-}PA} $$\end{document}, whose atomic programs are assignments of propositional variables to truth values. One of the benefits is that algorithms computing extensions of argumentation frameworks can be viewed as particular \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\mathsf {DL\text {-}PA} $$\end{document} programs. This allows us to formally prove the correctness of these algorithms. Another benefit is that in the same logic, we can also design and study programs which modify argumentation frameworks. Indeed, the basic operations on these propositional variables, viz. change of the truth values of the attack variables and the argument status variables, are nothing but atomic programs of \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\mathsf {DL\text {-}PA} $$\end{document}. We mainly focus on how the acceptance of one or more arguments can be enforced and show how this can be achieved by changing the truth values of the propositional variables describing the attack relation in a minimal way. (shrink)

Probabilistic argumentation and neuro-argumentative systems offer new computational perspectives for the theory and applications of argumentation, but their principled construction involves two entangled problems. On the one hand, probabilistic argumentation aims at combining the quantitative uncertainty addressed by probability theory with the qualitative uncertainty of argumentation, but probabilistic dependences amongst arguments as well as learning are usually neglected. On the other hand, neuro-argumentative systems offer the opportunity to couple the computational advantages of learning and massive parallel (...) computation from neural networks with argumentative reasoning and explanatory abilities, but the relation of probabilistic argumentation frameworks with these systems has been ignored so far. Towards the construction of neuro-argumentative systems based on probabilistic argumentation, we associate a model of abstract argumentation and the graphical model of Boltzmann machines in order to (i... (shrink)

argumentation has proven to be a versatile tool to model and analyze various problems in an argumentative setting. The addition of collective attacks syntactically extends Dung’s original argumentation frameworks (AFs), while retaining the most desirable properties—the resulting class of frameworks is called SETAFs. While most reasoning tasks in the realm of abstract argumentation have been shown to be intractable, real-world instances oftentimes are not entirely random but admit a certain structure that allows for efficient computational shortcuts. (...) In certain cases, we can characterize this structure via an integer parameter, and exploit these insights with advanced algorithmic techniques. A thorough analysis of the computational aspects of SETAFs w.r.t. parameterized algorithms has not yet been conducted. We start the investigation of these approaches by applying the backdoor and treewidth approaches to SETAFs. A backdoor is a part of a problem instance, such that removing the backdoor leads to a simple structure. If we can find such a backdoor and guess the solution on this part (respectively, extensions), the rest of the solution follows almost effortlessly. Similarly, the treewidth of a problem instance is a parameter that characterizes the properties of the instance’s graph structure. Intuitively, the lower the treewidth of a graph, the more “tree-like” it is. Since most argumentation problems become easy on trees, one can exploit low treewidth for efficient algorithms. In this paper, we establish that for SETAFs with constant backdoor sizes general argumentation tasks become efficiently solvable—they are fixed-parameter tractable. We generalize the respective techniques that are known for the special case of Dung-style AFs and show that they also apply to the more general case of SETAFs. In addition, we can show an improvement in the asymptotic runtime compared to earlier approaches for AFs via two-valued guesses instead of the state-of-the-art three-valued approach. Along the way, we point out similarities and interesting situations arising from the more general setting. While treewidth is well-studied in the context of AFs with their graph structure, it cannot be directly applied to the (directed) hypergraphs representing SETAFs. We thus introduce two generalizations of treewidth based on different graphs that can be associated with SETAFs, that is, the primal graph and the incidence graph. We show that while some of these notions allow for parameterized tractability results, reasoning remains intractable for other notions, even if we fix the parameter to a small constant. We present parameterized algorithms for efficient reasoning on SETAFs via tree decompositions by characterizing extensions not only by labeling the arguments, but also by assigning (temporary) labels to the attacks. (shrink)

According to conciliatory views on the significance of disagreement, it’s rational for you to become less confident in your take on an issue in case your epistemic peer’s take on it is different. These views are intuitively appealing, but they also face a powerful objection: in scenarios that involve disagreements over their own correctness, conciliatory views appear to self-defeat and, thereby, issue inconsistent recommendations. This paper provides a response to this objection. Drawing on the work from defeasible logics paradigm and (...) abstract argumentation, it develops a formal model of conciliatory reasoning and explores its behavior in the troubling scenarios. The model suggests that the recommendations that conciliatory views issue in such scenarios are perfectly reasonable—even if outwardly they may look odd. (shrink)

This work introduces the Attack-Support Argumentation Framework (ASAF), an approach to abstract argumentation that allows for the representation and combination of attack and support relations. This framework extends the argumentation Framework with Recursive Attacks (AFRA) in two ways. Firstly, it adds a support relation enabling to express support for arguments; this support can also be given to attacks, and to the support relation itself. Secondly, it extends AFRA’s attack relation by allowing attacks to the aforementioned support (...) relation. Moreover, since the support relation of the ASAF has a necessity interpretation, the ASAF also extends the Argumentation Framework with Necessities (AFN). Thus, the ASAF provides a unified framework for representing attack and support for arguments, as well as attack and support for the attack and support relations at any level. (shrink)

Discussion of Searle's case against strong AI has usually focused upon his Chinese Room thought-experiment. In this paper, however, I expound and then try to refute what I call his abstract argument against strong AI, an argument which turns upon quite general considerations concerning programs, syntax, and semantics, and which seems not to depend on intuitions about the Chinese Room. I claim that this argument fails, since it assumes one particular account of what a program is. I suggest an (...) alternative account which, however, cannot play a role in a Searle-type argument, and argue that Searle gives no good reason for favoring his account, which allows the abstract argument to work, over the alternative, which doesn't. This response to Searle's abstract argument also, incidentally, enables the Robot Reply to the Chinese Room to defend itself against objections Searle makes to it. (shrink)

In this paper, we provide an overview of the benchmarks that have been recently employed in Abstract Argumentation. We first describe the benchmark suite from previous editions of the International Competition of Computational Models of Argumentation (ICCMA), and then briefly describe the benchmarks for non-Dung frameworks. This article is a contribution to the new Argument & Computation Community Resources (ACCR) corner.

The notion of similarity has been studied in many areas of Computer Science; in a general sense, this concept is defined to provide a measure of the semantic equivalence between two pieces of knowledge, expressing how “close” their meaning can be regarded. In this work, we study similarity as a tool useful to improve the representation of arguments, the interpretation of the relations between arguments, and the semantic evaluation associated with the arguments in the argumentative process. In this direction, we (...) present a novel mechanism to determine the similarity between two arguments based on descriptors representing particular aspects associated with these arguments. This mechanism involves a comparison process influenced by the context in which the process develops, where this context provides the relevant aspects that need to be analyzed in the application domain. Then, we use this similarity measure as a quantity to compute the result of attacks and supports in the argumentation process. These valuations, applied to a Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks, allowed us to refine the argument relations, providing the tools to establish a family of new argumentation semantics that considers the similarity between arguments as a crucial part for the argumentation process. (shrink)

This paper introduces a multi-agent dynamic epistemic logic for abstract argumentation. Its main motivation is to build a general framework for modelling the dynamics of a debate, which entails reasoning about goals, beliefs, as well as policies of communication and information update by the participants. After locating our proposal and introducing the relevant tools from abstract argumentation, we proceed to build a three-tiered logical approach. At the first level, we use the language of propositional logic to (...) encode states of a multi-agent debate. This language allows to specify which arguments any agent is aware of, as well as their subjective justification status. We then extend our language and semantics to that of epistemic logic, in order to model individuals’ beliefs about the state of the debate, which includes uncertainty about the information available to others. As a third step, we introduce a framework of dynamic epistemic logic and its semantics, which is essentially based on so-called event models with factual change. We provide completeness results for a number of systems and show how existing formalisms for argumentation dynamics and unquantified uncertainty can be reduced to their semantics. The resulting framework allows reasoning about subtle epistemic and argumentative updates—such as the effects of different levels of trust in a source—and more in general about the epistemic dimensions of strategic communication. (shrink)

Many recent studies of dynamics in formal argumentation within AI focus on the well-known formalism of Dung’s argumentation frameworks (AFs). Despite the usefulness of AFs in many areas of argumentation, their abstract notion of arguments creates a barrier for operators that modify a given AF, e.g., in the case that dependencies between arguments have been abstracted away that are important for subsequent modifications. In this paper we aim to support development of dynamic operators on formal models (...) in abstract argumentation by providing constraints imposed on the modification of the structure that can be used to incorporate information that has been abstracted away. Towards a broad reach, we base our results on the general formalism of abstract dialectical frameworks (ADFs) in abstract argumentation. To show applicability, we present two cases studies that adapt an existing extension enforcement operator that modifies AFs: in the first case study, we show how to utilize constraints in order to obtain an enforcement operator on ADFs that is allowed to only add support relations between arguments, and in the second case study we show how an enforcement operator on AFs can be defined that respects dependencies between arguments. We show feasibility of our approach by studying the complexity of the proposed structural constraints and the operators arising from the case studies, and by an experimental evaluation of an answer set programming (ASP) implementation of the enforcement operator based on supports. (shrink)

This paper develops a measure of the influence of individual arguments in abstract argumentation frameworks. By applying ideas from power indices in coalitional game theory, the proposed measure—called admissibility impact value—quantifies the impact that individual arguments have on the set of admissible extensions of a given argumentation framework. It improves on existing impact measures in that it is more fine-grained and sensitive to small differences in the attack relations of argumentation frameworks. Special consideration is given to (...) well-founded frameworks, where the improvements are particularly pronounced. (shrink)

This paper addresses the issue of the dynamic enforcement of a constraint in an argumentation system. The system consists in (1) an argumentation framework, made up, notably, of a set of arguments...

argumentation, as originally defined by Dung, is a model that allows the description of certain information about arguments and relationships between them: in an abstract argumentation framework, the agent knows for sure whether a given argument or attack exists. It means that the absence of an attack between two arguments can be interpreted as “we know that the first argument does not attack the second one”. But the question of uncertainty in abstract argumentation has received (...) much attention in the last years. In this paper, we survey approaches that allow to express information like “There may be an attack between these arguments”. We describe the main models that incorporate qualitative uncertainty in abstract argumentation, as well as some applications of these models. We also highlight some open questions that deserve some attention in the future. (shrink)

This paper studies a fundamental mechanism by which conflicts between arguments are drawn from sentiments regarding acceptability of the arguments. Given sets of arguments, an inverse abstract argumentation problem seeks attack relations between arguments such that acceptability semantics interprets each argument in the sets of arguments as being acceptable in each of the attack relations. It is an inverse problem of the traditional problem we refer to as the forward abstract argumentation problem. Given an attack relation, (...) the forward abstract argumentation problem seeks sets of arguments such that acceptability semantics interprets each argument in the sets of arguments as being acceptable in the attack relation. We give a probabilistic model of argumentation-theoretic inference. It is a generative model formalising the process by which acceptability semantics interprets acceptability of arguments in a given attack relation. We show that it gives a broad view of solutions to the forward and inverse abstract argumentation problems. Specifically, solutions to the inverse and forward abstract argumentation problems are shown to be equivalent to a maximum likelihood estimate and maximum likelihood prediction, respectively, which are both available with the generative model. In addition, they are shown to be special cases of the posterior distribution and the evidence, respectively, which are both obtained by probabilistic inference on the generative model. We report an experiment result and application example of the generative model in the inverse problems. (shrink)

Argumentation is a very fertile area of research in Artificial Intelligence, and various semantics have been developed to predict when an argument can be accepted, depending on the abstract structure of its defeaters and defenders. When these semantics make conflicting predictions, theoretical arbitration typically relies on ad hoc examples and normative intuition about what prediction ought to be the correct one. We advocate a complementary, descriptive-experimental method, based on the collection of behavioral data about the way human reasoners (...) handle these critical cases. We report two studies applying this method to the case of reinstatement (both in its simple and floating forms). Results speak for the cognitive plausibility of reinstatement and yet show that it does not yield the full expected recovery of the attacked argument. Furthermore, results show that floating reinstatement yields comparable effects to that of simple reinstatement, thus arguing in favor of preferred argumentation semantics, rather than grounded argumentation semantics. Besides their theoretical value for validating and inspiring argumentation semantics, these results have applied value for developing artificial agents meant to argue with human users. (shrink)

We study instantiated abstract argumentation frames of the form, where is an abstract argumentation frame and where the arguments x of S are instantiated by I as well formed formulas of a well known logic, for example as Boolean formulas or as predicate logic formulas or as modal logic formulas. We use the method of conceptual analysis to derive the properties of our proposed system. We seek to define the notion of complete extensions for such systems (...) and provide algorithms for finding such extensions. We further develop a theory of instantiation in the abstract, using the framework of Boolean attack formations and of conjunctive and disjunctive attacks. We discuss applications and compare critically with the existing related literature. (shrink)

We describe a tool that allows the merging of extensions of argumentation frameworks, following the approach defined by 33–42). The tool is implemented in Java, and is highly modular thanks to Object Oriented Programming principles. We describe a short experimental study that assesses the scalability of the approach, as well as the impact on runtime of using an integrity constraint.

1. Argumentation, by considering arguments and their interactions, is a way of reasoning that has proven successful in many contexts, for instance, in multi-agent applications (Carrera & Iglesias,...

Dung’s argumentation frameworks are formalisms widely used to model interaction among arguments. Although their study has been profusely developed in the field of Artificial Intelligence, it is not common to see its treatment among those less connected to computer science within the logical-philosophical community. In this paper we propose to bring to that audience a proof-theory for argument justification based on tableaux, very similar to those the Logic students are familiar with. The tableaux enable to calculate whether an argument (...) or subset of arguments are accepted or rejected in accordance to Dung’s preferred and grounded extension-based semantics. Soundness and completeness results regarding those semantics are provided. (shrink)

This chapter aims at providing logical encodings for translating interactions in an argumentation graph themselves into propositional knowledge bases. This translation will be used for identifying or redefining some properties of argumentation graphs. The graphs we consider are used to formalize abstract argumentation with at least two different kinds of interaction (attack and support) and also recursive interactions.

argumentation semantics provide a direct relation from an argumentation framework to corresponding sets of acceptable arguments, or equivalently to labeling functions. Instead, we study stepwise update relations on argumentation frameworks whose fixpoints represent the labeling functions on the arguments. We make use of this dynamic approach in order to study novel ways of combining abstract argumentation semantics. In particular, we introduce the notion of a merge of two argumentation semantics, which is defined in such (...) a way that the merge of the preferred and the grounded semantics is the complete semantics. Finally, we consider how to define new semantics using the merge operator, in particular, how meaningfully combine features of naive-based and complete-based semantics. (shrink)

An abstract framework for structured arguments is presented, which instantiates Dung's ('On the Acceptability of Arguments and its Fundamental Role in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Logic Programming, and n- Person Games', Artificial Intelligence , 77, 321-357) abstract argumentation frameworks. Arguments are defined as inference trees formed by applying two kinds of inference rules: strict and defeasible rules. This naturally leads to three ways of attacking an argument: attacking a premise, attacking a conclusion and attacking an inference. To resolve such (...) attacks, preferences may be used, which leads to three corresponding kinds of defeat: undermining, rebutting and undercutting defeats. The nature of the inference rules, the structure of the logical language on which they operate and the origin of the preferences are, apart from some basic assumptions, left unspecified. The resulting framework integrates work of Pollock, Vreeswijk and others on the structure of arguments and the nature of defeat and extends it in several respects. Various rationality postulates are proved to be satisfied by the framework, and several existing approaches are proved to be a special case of the framework, including assumption-based argumentation and DefLog. (shrink)

1. Argumentation consists in reasoning with conflicting information based on the exchange and evaluation of interacting arguments. It can be used for modelling dialogue (persuasion, negotiation), d...

The Quantified argument calculus (Quarc) has received a lot of attention recently as an interesting system of quantified logic which eschews the use of variables and unrestricted quantification, but nonetheless achieves results similar to the Predicate calculus (PC) by employing quantifiers applied directly to predicates instead. Despite this noted similarity, the issue of the relationship between Quarc and PC has so far not been definitively resolved. We address this question in the present paper, and then expand upon that result. Utilizing (...) recent developments in structural proof theory, we develop a G3-style sequent calculus for Quarc and briefly demonstrate its structural properties. We put these properties to use immediately to construct direct proofs of the meta-theoretical properties of the system. We then incorporate an abstract (and, as we shall see, logical) predicate into the system in a way that preserves all the structural properties. This allows us to identify a system of Quarc which is deductively equivalent to PC, and also yields a constructive method of demonstrating the Craig interpolation theorem (which speaks in favor of the aforementioned predicate being logical). We further generalize this extension to develop a bivalent system of Quarc with defining clauses that still maintains all the desirable properties of a good proof system. (shrink)