Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Generalization of Dung’s Abstract Framework for Argumentation: Arguing with Sets of Attacking Arguments

  • Conference paper
Book cover Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems (ArgMAS 2006)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 4766))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

One of the most widely studied systems of argumentation is the one described by Dung in a paper from 1995. Unfortunately, this framework does not allow for joint attacks on arguments, which we argue must be required of any truly abstract argumentation framework. A few frameworks can be said to allow for such interactions among arguments, but for various reasons we believe that these are inadequate for modelling argumentation systems with joint attacks. In this paper we propose a generalization of the framework of Dung, which allows for sets of arguments to attack other arguments. We extend the semantics associated with the original framework to this generalization, and prove that all results in the paper by Dung have an equivalent in this more abstract framework.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • 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.

References

  1. Birnbaum, L.: Argument molecules: a functional representation of argument structure. In: Proceedings of the 2nd National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 63–65. AAAI Press, Stanford, California, USA (1982)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Birnbaum, L., Flowers, M., McGuire, R.: Towards an AI model of argumentation. In: Proceedings of the First National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 313–315. AAAI Press, Stanford, California, USA (1980)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Flowers, M., McGuire, R., Birnbaum, L.: Adversary arguments and the logic of personal attacks. In: Strategies for natural language processing, pp. 275–294. Lawrence Erblaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ (1982)

    Google Scholar 

  4. McGuire, R., Birnbaum, L., Flowers, M.: Opportunistic processing in arguments. In: Proceedings of the Seventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 58–60. AAAI Press, Stanford, California, USA (1981)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Cayrol, C.: On the relation between argumentation and non-monotonic coherence-based entailment. In: Mellish, C.S. (ed.) Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 1443–1448. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Loui, R.: Defeat among arguments: A system of defeasible inference. Computational Intelligence 3(22), 100–106 (1987)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Elvang-Gøransson, M., Hunter, A.: Argumentative logics: Reasoning with classically inconsistent information. Data Knowledge Engineering 16(2), 125–145 (1995)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Elvang-Gøransson, M., Krause, P., Fox, J.: Dialectic reasoning with inconsistent information. In: Heckerman, D., Mamdani, A. (eds.) Proceedings of the Ninth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 114–121. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bondarenko, A., Dung, P.M., Kowalski, R.A., Toni, F.: An abstract argumentation-theoretic approach to default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 93(1/2), 63–101 (1997)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  10. Lin, F.: An argument-based approach to non-monotonic reasoning. Computational Intelligence 9, 254–267 (1993)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Prakken, H., Vreeswijk, G.: Logics for defeasible argumentation. In: Gabbay, D. (ed.) Handbook of Philosophical Logic, 2nd edn., vol. 4, pp. 218–319. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Benferhat, S., Dubois, D., Prade, H.: Argumentative inference in uncertain and inconsistent knowledge bases. In: Heckerman, D., Mamdani, A. (eds.) Proceedings of the 9th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 411–419. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Kohlas, J.: Symbolic evidence, arguments, supports and valuation networks. In: Moral, S., Kruse, R., Clarke, E. (eds.) ECSQARU 1993. LNCS, vol. 747, pp. 186–198. Springer, Heidelberg (1993)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. Krause, P., Ambler, S., Elvang-Gøransson, M., Fox, J.: A logic of argumentation for reasoning under uncertainty. Computational Intelligence 11(1), 113–131 (1995)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  15. Carbogim, D.V., Robertson, D., Lee, J.: Argument-based applications to knowledge engineering. Knowledge Engineering Review 15(2), 119–150 (2000)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Parsons, S., Sierra, C., Jennings, N.R.: Agents that reason and negotiate by arguing. Journal of Logic and Computation 8(3), 261–292 (1998)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  17. Prakken, H.: Relating protocols for dynamic dispute with logics for defeasible argumentation. Synthese 127, 187–219 (2001)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  18. Amgoud, L., Maudet, N., Parsons, S.: An argumentation-based semantics for agent communication languages. In: Van Harmelen, F. (ed.) Proceedings of the Fifteenth European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 38–42. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  19. McBurney, P.: Rational Interaction. PhD thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of Liverpool (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  20. 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), 321–358 (1995)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  21. Amgoud, L.: Contribution a l’integration des préferences dans le raisonnement argumentatif. PhD thesis, Université Paul Sabatier (July 1999)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C.: On the acceptability of arguments in preference-based argumentation framework. In: Cooper, G., Moral, S. (eds.) Proceedings of the Fourteenth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 1–7. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Amgoud, L., Maudet, N., Parsons, S.: Modelling dialogues using argumentation. In: Durfee, E. (ed.) Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems, pp. 31–38. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2000)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  24. Parsons, S., Wooldridge, M., Amgoud, L.: Properties and complexity of formal inter-agent dialogues. Journal of Logic and Computation 13(3), 347–376 (2003)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  25. Nielsen, S.H., Parsons, S.: Computing preferred extensions for argumentation systems with sets of attacking arguments. In: Dunne, P.E., Bench-Capon, T.J.M. (eds.) Proceedings of the First International Conference on Computational Models of Argument. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 144, pp. 97–108. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Nielsen, S.H., Parsons, S.: An application of formal argumentation: Fusing Bayes nets in MAS. In: Dunne, P.E., Bench-Capon, T.J.M. (eds.) Proceedings of the First International Conference on Computational Models of Argument. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 144, pp. 33–44. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Verheij, B.: Rules, Reasons, Arguments. Formal studies of argumentation and defeat. PhD thesis, Universiteit Maastricht (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Dix, J., Gottlob, G., Marek, V.: Reducing disjunctive to non-disjunctive semantics by shift-operations. Fundamenta Informaticae 28(1), 87–100 (1996)

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  29. Tarski, A.: A lattice-theoretic fixpoint theorem and its applications. Pacific Journal of Mathematics 5(2), 285–309 (1955)

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  30. Bochman, A.: Collective argumentation and disjunctive logic programming. Journal of Logic and Computation 13(3), 406–428 (2003)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  31. Nielsen, S.H., Parsons, S.: Note on the short-comings of CumulA. (2006), http://www.cs.aau.dk/~holbech/cumulanote.ps

  32. Verheij, B.: Argue! - an implemented system for computer-mediated defeasible argumentation. In: Poutré, H.L., van den Herik, H. (eds.) Proceedings of the Tenth Netherlands/Belgium Conference on Artificial Intelligence, CWI, Amsterdam, Netherlands, pp. 57–66 (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  33. Verheij, B.: Deflog: On the logical interpretation of prima facie justified assumptions. Journal of Logic and Computation 13(3), 319–346 (2003)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  34. Verheij, B.: Artificial argument assistants for defeasible argumentation. Artificial Intelligence 150(1/2), 291–324 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Vreeswijk, G.A.W.: Abstract argumentation systems. Artificial Intelligence 90(1), 225–279 (1997)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  36. Garcia, A.J., Simari, G.R.: Defeasible logic programming: An argumentative approach. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 4(1), 95–138 (2004)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  37. Pollock, J.L.: Cognitive Carpentry: A Blueprint for How to Build a Person. MIT Press, Cambridge (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  38. Prakken, H.: A study of accrual of arguments, with applications to evidential reasoning. In: Gardner, A. (ed.) Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pp. 85–94. ACM Publishing, New York (2005)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark

    Søren Holbech Nielsen

  2. Department of Computer and Information Science, Brooklyn College, City University of New York, Brooklyn, 11210 NY, USA

    Simon Parsons

Authors
  1. Søren Holbech Nielsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Simon Parsons
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Nicolas Maudet Simon Parsons Iyad Rahwan

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2007 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Nielsen, S.H., Parsons, S. (2007). A Generalization of Dung’s Abstract Framework for Argumentation: Arguing with Sets of Attacking Arguments. In: Maudet, N., Parsons, S., Rahwan, I. (eds) Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems. ArgMAS 2006. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 4766. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-75526-5_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-75526-5_4

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-75525-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-75526-5

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation