Assumption-Based Argumentation for Closed and Consistent Defeasible Reasoning | SpringerLink
Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Assumption-Based Argumentation for Closed and Consistent Defeasible Reasoning

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
New Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence (JSAI 2007)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 4914))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 1193 Accesses

Abstract

Assumption-based argumentation is a concrete but generalpurpose argumentation framework that has been shown, in particular, to generalise several existing mechanisms for non-monotonic reasoning, and is equipped with a computational counterpart and an implemented system. It can thus serve as a computational tool for argumentation-based reasoning, and for automatising the process of finding solutions to problems that can be understood in assumption-based argumentation terms. In this paper we consider the problem of reasoning with defeasible and strict rules, for example as required in a legal setting. We provide a mapping of defeasible reasoning into assumption-based argumentation, and show that the framework obtained has properties of closedness and consistency, that have been advocated elsewhere as important for defeasible reasoning in the presence of strict rules. Whereas other argumentation approaches have been proven closed and consistent under some specific semantics, we prove that assumption-based argumentation is closed and consistent under all argumentation semantics.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Antoniou, G., et al.: Representation results for defeasible logic. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic 2(2), 255–287 (2001)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  2. Billington, D., Rock, A.: Propositional plausible logic: Introduction and implementation. Studia Logica 67(2), 243–269 (2001)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  3. Bondarenko, A., et al.: An abstract, argumentation-theoretic framework for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 93(1-2), 63–101 (1997)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  4. Caminada, M., Amgoud, L.: An axiomatic account of formal argumentation. In: Proc. AAAI (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Dung, P.M.: The acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in non-monotonic reasoning and logic programming and n-person game. Artificial Intelligence 77, 321–357 (1995)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  6. Dung, P., Kowalski, R., Toni, F.: Dialectic proof procedures for assumption-based, admissible argumentation. Artificial Intelligence 170, 114–159 (2006)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  7. Dung, P., Mancarella, P., Toni, F.: A dialectic procedure for sceptical, assumption-based argumentation. In: 1st International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2006) (September 2006)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Dung, P., Mancarella, P., Toni, F.: Computing ideal sceptical argumentation. Artificial Intelligence, Special Issue on Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence (to appear, 2007)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Garcia, A., Simari, G.: Defeasible logic programming: An argumentative approach. Journal of Theory and Practice of Logic Prog. 4(1-2), 95–138 (2004)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  10. Governatori, G., et al.: A formal approach to protocols and strategies for (legal) negotiation. In: Procedings of the 8th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pp. 168–177 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Governatori, G., et al.: Argumentation semantics for defeasible logics. Journal of Logic and Computation 14(5), 675–702 (2004)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  12. Grosof, B.N.: Prioritized conflict handling for logic programs. In: Proc. Int. Logic Programming Symposium, pp. 197–211 (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Kakas, A.C., Moraitis, P.: Argumentation based decision making for autonomous agents. In: AAMAS, pp. 883–890 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Kowalski, R.A., Toni, F.: Abstract argumentation. Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Law, Special Issue on Logical Models of Argumentation 4(3-4), 275–296 (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Nute, D.: Defeasible reasoning. In: Fetzer, J.H. (ed.) Aspects of Artificial Intelligence, pp. 251–288. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1987)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Nute, D.: Apparent obligation. In: Nute, D. (ed.) Defeasible Deontic Logic, pp. 287–316. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1997)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  17. Pollock, J.: Defeasible reasoning. Cognitive Science 11(4), 481–518 (1987)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: Argument-based extended logic programming with defeasible priorities. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 7(1), 25–75 (1997)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  19. Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: The role of logic in computational models of legal argument: A critical survey. In: Kakas, A.C., Sadri, F. (eds.) Computational Logic: Logic Programming and Beyond. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2408, pp. 342–381. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  20. Toni, F., Kowalski, R.A.: Reduction of abductive logic programs to normal logic programs. In: ICLP, pp. 367–381 (1995)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computing, Imperial College London, UK

    Francesca Toni

Authors
  1. Francesca Toni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Ken Satoh Akihiro Inokuchi Katashi Nagao Takahiro Kawamura

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2008 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Toni, F. (2008). Assumption-Based Argumentation for Closed and Consistent Defeasible Reasoning. In: Satoh, K., Inokuchi, A., Nagao, K., Kawamura, T. (eds) New Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence. JSAI 2007. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 4914. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-78197-4_36

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-78197-4_36

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-78196-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-78197-4

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation