Undercutting in Argumentation Systems

  • Leila AmgoudEmail author
  • Farid Nouioua
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9310)


Rule-based argumentation systems are developed for reasoning about defeasible information. They take as input a theory made of a set of strict rules, which encode strict information, and a set of defeasible rules which describe general behaviour with exceptional cases. They build arguments by chaining such rules, define attacks between them, use a semantics for evaluating the arguments, and finally identify the plausible conclusions that follow from the rules.

One of the main attack relations of such systems is the so-called undercutting which blocks the application of defeasible rules in some contexts. In this paper, we show that this relation is powerful enough to capture alone all the different conflicts in a theory. We present the first argumentation system that uses only undercutting and fully characterize both its extensions and its plausible conclusions under various acceptability semantics.


Rule-based argumentation Undercutting Acceptability semantics 



This work benefited from the support of AMANDE ANR-13-BS02-0004 and ASPIQ ANR-12-BS02-0003 projects of the French National Research Agency.


  1. 1.
    Amgoud, L., Besnard, P.: A formal characterization of the outcomes of rule-based argumentation systems. In: Liu, W., Subrahmanian, V.S., Wijsen, J. (eds.) SUM 2013. LNCS, vol. 8078, pp. 78–91. Springer, Heidelberg (2013) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Amgoud, L., Caminada, M., Cayrol, C., Lagasquie, M.C., Prakken, H.: Towards a Consensual Formal Model: inference part. Deliverable of ASPIC project (2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Caminada, M., Amgoud, L.: On the evaluation of argumentation formalisms. Artif. Intell. J. 171(5–6), 286–310 (2007)zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Caminada, M., Sá, S., Alcântara, J.: On the equivalence between logic programming semantics and argumentation semantics. In: van der Gaag, L.C. (ed.) ECSQARU 2013. LNCS, vol. 7958, pp. 97–108. Springer, Heidelberg (2013) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cohen, A., García, A.J., Simari, G.R.: Backing and undercutting in defeasible logic programming. In: Liu, W. (ed.) ECSQARU 2011. LNCS, vol. 6717, pp. 50–61. Springer, Heidelberg (2011) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cohen, A., García, A.J., Simari, G.R.: Backing and undercutting in abstract argumentation frameworks. In: Lukasiewicz, T., Sali, A. (eds.) FoIKS 2012. LNCS, vol. 7153, pp. 107–123. Springer, Heidelberg (2012) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and \(n\)-person games. Artif. Intell. J. 77(2), 321–357 (1995)zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    García, A.J., Simari, G.R.: Defeasible logic programming: an argumentative approach. Theor. Pract. Logic Program. 4(1–2), 95–138 (2004)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gebser, M., Gharib, M., Mercer, R., Schaub, T.: Monotonic answer set programming. J. Logic Comput. 19(4), 539–564 (2009)zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: Classical negation in logic programs and disjunctive databases. New Gener. Comput. 9, 365–385 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Governatori, G., Maher, M.J., Antoniou, G., Billington, D.: Argumentation semantics for defeasible logic. J. Logic Comput. 14(5), 675–702 (2004)zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lukaszewicz, W.: Considerations on default logic: an alternative approach. Comput. Intell. 4, 1–16 (1988)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pollock, J.L.: How to reason defeasibly. Artif. Intell. J. 57(1), 1–42 (1992)zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Prakken, H.: An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. J. Argum. Comput. 1(2), 93–124 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Reiter, R.: A logic for default reasoning. Artif. Intell. J. 13(1–2), 81–132 (1980)zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.IRIT – CNRSToulouseFrance
  2. 2.LSIS – Aix-Marseille UniversityMarseilleFrance

Personalised recommendations