Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

On Explanations for Non-Acceptable Arguments

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Theory and Applications of Formal Argumentation (TAFA 2015)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 9524))

Abstract

Argumentation has the unique advantage of giving explanations to reasoning processes and results. Recent work studied how to give explanations for arguments that are acceptable, in terms of arguments defending it. This paper studies the counterpart of this problem by formalising explanations for arguments that are not acceptable. We give two different views (an argument-view and an attack-view) in explaining the non-acceptability of an argument and show the computation of explanations with debate trees.

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 EPUB and 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

Notes

  1. 1.

    Here and after, \(\_\) denotes an anonymous variable as in Prolog.

References

  1. Arioua, A., Tamani, N., Croitoru, M., Buche, P.: Query failure explanation in inconsistent knowledge bases using argumentation. In: Proceedings of the COMMA, pp. 101–108 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Baumann, R.: What does it take to enforce an argument? minimal change in abstract argumentation. In: Proceedings of the ECAI, pp. 127–132 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Baumann, R., Brewka, G.: Expanding argumentation frameworks: Enforcing and monotonicity results. In: Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2010, Desenzano del Garda, Italy, 8–10 September 2010, pp. 75–86 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bisquert, P., Cayrol, C., de Saint-Cyr, F.D., Lagasquie-Scheix, M.-C.: Change in Argumentation Systems: Exploring the Interest of Removing an Argument. In: Benferhat, S., Grant, J. (eds.) SUM 2011. LNCS, vol. 6929, pp. 275–288. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  5. Booth, R., Gabbay, D.M., Kaci, S., Rienstra, T., Torre, L.V.D.: Abduction and dialogical proof in argumentation and logic programming. In: Proceedings of the ECAI, pp. 117–122 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Cayrol, C., Saint-Cyr, F.D., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.: Change in abstract argumentation frameworks: Adding an argument. JAIR 38, 49–84 (2010)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Cerutti, F., Tintarev, N., Oren, N.: Formal arguments, preferences, and natural language interfaces to humans: an empirical evaluation. In: ECAI 2014–21st European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 18–22 August 2014, Prague, Czech Republic - Including Prestigious Applications of Intelligent Systems (PAIS 2014), pp. 207–212 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Chesñevar, C.I., Simari, G.R., Godo, L.: Computing dialectical trees efficiently in possibilistic defeasible logic programming. In: Baral, C., Greco, G., Leone, N., Terracina, G. (eds.) LPNMR 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3662, pp. 158–171. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  9. Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in non-monotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. AIJ 77(2), 321–357 (1995)

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  10. Dung, P.M., Kowalski, R.A., Toni, F.: Dialectic proof procedures for assumption-based, admissible argumentation. AIJ 170, 114–159 (2006)

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  11. Dung, P.M., Kowalski, R.A., Toni, F.: Assumption-based argumentation. In: Simari, G., Rahwan, I. (eds.) Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 199–218. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  12. Dung, P.M., Mancarella, P., Toni, F.: Computing ideal sceptical argumentation. AIJ 171(10–15), 642–674 (2007)

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  13. Fan, X., Toni, F.: Decision Making with Assumption-Based Argumentation. In: Black, E., Modgil, S., Oren, N. (eds.) TAFA 2013. LNCS, vol. 8306, pp. 127–142. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Fan, X., Toni, F.: On computing explanation in abstract argumentation. In: Proceedings of the ECAI (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Fan, X., Toni, F.: On computing explanations in argumentation. In: Proceedings of the AAAI (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Kontarinis, D., Bonzon, E., Maudet, N., Perotti, A., van der Torre, L., Villata, S.: Rewriting Rules for the Computation of Goal-Oriented Changes in an Argumentation System. In: Leite, J., Son, T.C., Torroni, P., van der Torre, L., Woltran, S. (eds.) CLIMA XIV 2013. LNCS, vol. 8143, pp. 51–68. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  17. Modgil, S., Prakken, H.: The ASPIC\({}^{\text{+ }}\) framework for structured argumentation: a tutorial. Argum. Comput. 5(1), 31–62 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Modgil, S., et al.: The added value of argumentation. In: Ossowski, S. (ed.) Agreement Technologies, vol. 8, pp. 357–403. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  19. Prakken, H.: Formal systems for persuasion dialogue. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 21(2), 163–188 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Rahwan, I., Simari, G.R.: Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Rahwan, I., Madakkatel, M.I., Bonnefon, J.-F., Awan, R.N., Abdallah, S.: Behavioral experiments for assessing the abstract argumentation semantics of reinstatement. Cogn. Sci. 34(8), 1483–1502 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Rotstein, N.D., Moguillansky, M.O., Falappa, M.A., García, A.J., Simari, G.R.: Argument theory change: Revision upon warrant. In: Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2008, Toulouse, France, 28–30 May 2008, pp. 336–347 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Sakama, C.: Abduction in argumentation frameworks and its use in debate games. In: Nakano, Y., Satoh, K., Bekki, D. (eds.) JSAI-isAI 2013. LNCS, vol. 8417, pp. 285–303. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Tintarev, N., Masthoff, J.: Evaluating the effectiveness of explanations for recommender systems - methodological issues and empirical studies on the impact of personalization. User Model. User-Adapt. Interact. 22(4–5), 399–439 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Toni, F.: A tutorial on assumption-based argumentation. Argument & Computation, Special Issue: Tutorials on Structured Argumentation 5(1), 89–117 (2014)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  26. Walton, D., Krabbe, E.: Commitment in Dialogue: Basic concept of interpersonal reasoning. State University of New York Press, Albany (1995)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the EPSRC TRaDAr project Transparent Rational Decisions by Argumentation: EP/J020915/1.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Imperial College London, London, UK

    Xiuyi Fan & Francesca Toni

Authors
  1. Xiuyi Fan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Francesca Toni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xiuyi Fan .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. King's College London, London, United Kingdom

    Elizabeth Black

  2. Strand Building;Strand Campus, King's College London, London, United Kingdom

    Sanjay Modgil

  3. Department of Computing Science, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, United Kingdom

    Nir Oren

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this paper

Cite this paper

Fan, X., Toni, F. (2015). On Explanations for Non-Acceptable Arguments. In: Black, E., Modgil, S., Oren, N. (eds) Theory and Applications of Formal Argumentation. TAFA 2015. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 9524. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28460-6_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28460-6_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-28459-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-28460-6

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation