Previous chapters have focussed on abstract argumentation frameworks and properties of sets of arguments defined under various extension-based semantics. The main focus of this chapter is on more procedural, proof-theoretic and algorithmic aspects of argumentation. In particular, Chapter 11 describes properties of extensions of a Dung argumentation framework.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
L. Amgoud and C. Cayrol. A Reasoning Model Based on the Production of Acceptable Arguments. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 34(1–3),197–215, 2002.
H. Barringer, D. M. Gabbay and J. Woods. Temporal Dynamics of Support and Attack Networks: From Argumentation to Zoology. Mechanizing Mathematical Reasoning, 59–98, 2005.
A. Bondarenko and P.M. Dung and R.A. Kowalski and F. Toni. An abstract, argumentation-theoretic approach to default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 93:63–101, 1997.
M. Caminada. For the sake of the Argument. Explorations into argument-based reasoning. Doctoral dissertation Free University Amsterdam, 2004.
M. Caminada. On the Issue of Reinstatement in Argumentation. In European Conference on Logic in Artificial Intelligence (JELIA), 111–123, 2006.
M. Caminada. An Algorithm for Computing Semi-stable Semantics. In European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty (ECSQARU), 222–234, 2007.
M. Caminada and Y. Wu. Towards an Argument Game for Stable Semantics. InComputational Models of Natural Argument, to appear, 2008.
C. Cayrol, S. Doutre and J. Mengin. Dialectical Proof Theories for the Credulous Preferred Semantics of Argumentation Frameworks. In European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty (ECSQARU), 668–679, 2001.
C. Cayrol, S. Doutre and J. Mengin. On Decision Problems related to the preferred semantics for argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation, 13(3), 377–403, 2003.
C. Cayrol and M. Lagasquie-Schiex. On the Acceptability of Arguments in Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks. In European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty (ECSQARU), 378–389, 2005.
C. Cayrol and M.-Ch. Lagasquie-Schiex. Graduality in argumentation. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 23:245–297, 2005.
S. Doutre and J. Mengin. On sceptical vs credulous acceptance for abstract argument systems. In Ninth European Conference on Logics in Artificial Intelligence (JELIA 2004), 462–473, 2004.
P. M. Dung. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence, 77:321–357, 1995.
P.M. Dung, P. Mancarella and F. Toni. Computing ideal sceptical argumentation. Artificial Intelligence Journal, 171(10–15):642–674, 2007.
P.M. Dung and P.M. Thang. A Sound and Complete Dialectical Proof Procedure for Sceptical Preferred Argumentation. In Proc. of the LPNMR-Workshop on Argumentation and Nonmonotonic Reasoning (ArgNMR07), 49–63, 2007.
P.E. Dunne and T.J.M. Bench-Capon. Two Party Immediate Response Disputes: Properties and Efficiency. Artificial Intelligence Journal, 149(2),221–250, 2003.
H. Jakobovits and D. Vermeir. Dialectic Semantics for Argumentation Frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation, 53–62, 1999.
P. Lorenzen. Dialectical foundations of logical calculi. Constructive Philosophy, Univ. of Massachusetts Press, 1987.
P. Lorenzen and K.Lorenz”. Dialogische Logik. Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt, 1978.
S. Modgil. An Abstract Theory of Argumentation That Accommodates Defeasible Reasoning About Preferences. In European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty (ECSQARU), 648–659, 2007.
S. Modgil and M. Caminada. Proof Theories and Algorithms for Abstract Argumentation Frameworks. Technical Report, Department of Computer Science, King’s College London, www.dcs.kcl.ac.uk/staff/modgilsa/ProofTheoriesAlgorithms.pdf, 2008.
S. Nielsen and S. Parsons. A generalization of Dung’s abstract framework for argumentation: Arguing with sets of attacking arguments. In Proc. Third International Workshop on Argumentation in Multiagent Systems (ArgMAS 2006), 54–73, 2006.
J. L. Pollock. Cognitive Carpentry. A Blueprint for How to Build a Person. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1995.
H. Prakken and G. Sartor. Argument-based extended logic programming with defeasible priorities. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics, 7:25–75, 1997.
B. Verheij. A Labeling Approach to the Computation of Credulous Acceptance in Argumentation. In International Joint Conference on Aritificial Intelligence (IJCAI), 623–628, 2007.
G. A. W. Vreeswijk. Defeasible dialectics: A controversy-oriented approach towards defeasible argumentation. Journal of Logic and Computation, 3:3–27, 1993.
G. A. W. Vreeswijk. An algorithm to compute minimally grounded and admissible defence sets in argument systems. In Proc. 1st International Conference on Computational Models of Argument, 109–120, 2006.
G. A. W. Vreeswijk and H. Prakken. Credulous and sceptical argument games for preferred semantics. In Proc. 7th European Workshop on Logic for Artificial Intelligence, 239–253, 2000.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Gerard Vreeswijk for his contributions to the contents of this chapter. Thanks also to Nir Oren for commenting on a draft of the chapter.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Springer-Verlag US
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Modgil, S., Caminada, M. (2009). Proof Theories and Algorithms for Abstract Argumentation Frameworks. In: Simari, G., Rahwan, I. (eds) Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-98197-0_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-98197-0_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-0-387-98196-3
Online ISBN: 978-0-387-98197-0
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)