Haskell Gets Argumentative | SpringerLink
Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Haskell Gets Argumentative

  • Conference paper
Trends in Functional Programming (TFP 2012)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNTCS,volume 7829))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Argumentation theory is an interdisciplinary field studying how conclusions can be reached through logical reasoning. The notion of argument is completely general, including for example legal arguments, scientific arguments, and political arguments. Computational argumentation theory is studied in the context of artificial intelligence, and a number of computational argumentation frameworks have been put forward to date. However, there is a lack of concrete, high level realisations of these frameworks, which hampers research and applications at a number of levels. We hypothesise that the lack of suitable domain-specific languages in which to formalise argumentation frameworks is a contributing factor. In this paper, we present a formalisation of a particular computational argumentation framework, Carneades, as a case study with a view to investigate the extent to which functional languages are useful as a means to realising computational argumentation frameworks and reason about them.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
¥17,985 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
JPY 3498
Price includes VAT (Japan)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
JPY 5719
Price includes VAT (Japan)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
JPY 7149
Price includes VAT (Japan)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

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. Chesñevar, C.I., Maguitman, A.G., Loui, R.P.: Logical models of argument. ACM Comput. Surv. 32(4), 337–383 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Prakken, H., Vreeswijk, G.A.W.: Logics for defeasible argumentation. Handbook of Philosophical Logic 4(5), 219–318 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Reed, C., Rowe, G.: Araucaria: software for argument analysis, diagramming and representation. International Journal of AI Tools 13(4), 961–980 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Rahwan, I., Ramchurn, S.D., Jennings, N.R., Mcburney, P., Parsons, S., Sonenberg, L.: Argumentation-based negotiation. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 18(4), 343–375 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence 77(2), 321–357 (1995)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Brewka, G., Gordon, T.F.: Carneades and abstract dialectical frameworks: a reconstruction. In: Giacomin, M., Simari, G.R. (eds.) Computational Models of Argument. Proceedings of COMMA 2010, Amsterdam etc., pp. 3–12. IOS Press (2010a)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Brewka, G., Dunne, P.E., Woltran, S.: Relating the semantics of abstract dialectical frameworks and standard AFs. In: Proceedings of the 22nd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2011), pp. 780–785 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  8. van Gijzel, B., Prakken, H.: Relating Carneades with abstract argumentation via the ASPIC +  framework for structured argumentation. Argument & Computation 3(1), 21–47 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Governatori, G.: On the relationship between carneades and defeasible logic. In: van Engers, T. (ed.) Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL 2011). ACM Press (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Prakken, H.: An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. Argument & Computation 1, 93–124 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Gordon, T.F., Walton, D.: Proof burdens and standards. In: Simari, G., Rahwan, I. (eds.) Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 239–258. Springer, US (2009)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  12. Gordon, T.F., Prakken, H., Walton, D.: The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof. Artificial Intelligence 171(10-15), 875–896 (2007)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Gordon, T.F.: Personal communication (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Erwig, M.: Inductive graphs and functional graph algorithms. Journal Functional Programming 11(5), 467–492 (2001)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Freeman, K., Farley, A.M.: A model of argumentation and its application to legal reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law 4, 163–197 (1996), 10.1007/BF00118492

    Google Scholar 

  16. Farley, A.M., Freeman, K.: Burden of proof in legal argumentation. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL-05), pp. 156–164. ACM, New York (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Bryant, D., Krause, P.: A review of current defeasible reasoning implementations. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 23, 227–260 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Gordon, T.F.: An overview of the Carneades argumentation support system. In: Tindale, C., Reed, C. (eds.) Dialectics, Dialogue and Argumentation. An Examination of Douglas Walton’s Theories of Reasoning, pp. 145–156. College Publications (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Chesñevar, C., McGinnis, J., Modgil, S., Rahwan, I., Reed, C., Simari, G., South, M., Vreeswijk, G., Willmott, S.: Towards an argument interchange format. The Knowledge Engineering Review 21(4), 293–316 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Rahwan, I., Reed, C.: The argument interchange format. In: Simari, G., Rahwan, I. (eds.) Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 383–402. Springer, US (2009)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  21. Bex, F., Modgil, S., Prakken, H., Reed, C.: On logical specifications of the Argument Interchange Format. Journal of Logic and Computation (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Walkingshaw, E., Erwig, M.: A DSEL for Studying and Explaining Causation. In: IFIP Working Conference on Domain Specific Languages (DSL 2011), pp. 143–167 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Erwig, M., Walkingshaw, E.: Causal Reasoning with Neuron Diagrams. In: IEEE Int. Symp. on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing, pp. 101–108 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Lewis, D.: Postscripts to ‘Causation’. In: Philosophical Papers, vol. II, pp. 196–210. Oxford University Press (1986)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Pearl, J.: Bayesian networks: A model of self-activated memory for evidential reasoning. In: Proceedings of the 7th Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, University of California, Irvine, pp. 329–334 (1985)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Grabmair, M., Gordon, T.F., Walton, D.: Probabilistic semantics for the carneades argument model using bayesian networks. In: Proceedings of the 2010 Conference on Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2010, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 255–266. IOS Press (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Keppens, J.: Argument diagram extraction from evidential bayesian networks. Artificial Intelligence and Law 20, 109–143 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Vreeswijk, G.A.W.: Argumentation in bayesian belief networks. In: Rahwan, I., Moraïtis, P., Reed, C. (eds.) ArgMAS 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3366, pp. 111–129. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  29. Caminada, M., Amgoud, L.: On the evaluation of argumentation formalisms. Artificial Intelligence 171, 286–310 (2007)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Functional Programming Laboratory, School of Computer Science, University of Nottingham, United Kingdom

    Bas van Gijzel & Henrik Nilsson

Authors
  1. Bas van Gijzel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Henrik Nilsson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Mathematics and Computer Science, Heriot-Watt University, EH14 4AS, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK

    Hans-Wolfgang Loidl

  2. Facultad de Informática, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, c/. Profesor José García Santesmases s/n, 28040, Madrid, Spain

    Ricardo Peña

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

van Gijzel, B., Nilsson, H. (2013). Haskell Gets Argumentative. In: Loidl, HW., Peña, R. (eds) Trends in Functional Programming. TFP 2012. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 7829. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40447-4_14

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40447-4_14

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-40446-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-40447-4

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation