Proof Theories and Algorithms for Abstract Argumentation Frameworks
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.
KeywordsWinning Strategy Proof Theory Transition Step Argumentation Framework Argument System
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
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.
- 2.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.Google Scholar
- 4.M. Caminada. For the sake of the Argument. Explorations into argument-based reasoning. Doctoral dissertation Free University Amsterdam, 2004.Google Scholar
- 5.M. Caminada. On the Issue of Reinstatement in Argumentation. In European Conference on Logic in Artificial Intelligence (JELIA), 111–123, 2006.Google Scholar
- 6.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.Google Scholar
- 7.M. Caminada and Y. Wu. Towards an Argument Game for Stable Semantics. InComputational Models of Natural Argument, to appear, 2008.Google Scholar
- 8.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.Google Scholar
- 10.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.Google Scholar
- 12.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.Google Scholar
- 15.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.Google Scholar
- 17.H. Jakobovits and D. Vermeir. Dialectic Semantics for Argumentation Frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation, 53–62, 1999.Google Scholar
- 18.P. Lorenzen. Dialectical foundations of logical calculi. Constructive Philosophy, Univ. of Massachusetts Press, 1987.Google Scholar
- 19.P. Lorenzen and K.Lorenz”. Dialogische Logik. Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt, 1978.Google Scholar
- 20.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.Google Scholar
- 21.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.
- 22.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.Google Scholar
- 23.J. L. Pollock. Cognitive Carpentry. A Blueprint for How to Build a Person. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1995.Google Scholar
- 25.B. Verheij. A Labeling Approach to the Computation of Credulous Acceptance in Argumentation. In International Joint Conference on Aritificial Intelligence (IJCAI), 623–628, 2007.Google Scholar
- 27.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.Google Scholar
- 28.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.Google Scholar