Dung’s argumentation frameworks are formalisms widely used to model interaction among arguments. Although their study has been profusely developed in the field of Artificial Intelligence, it is not common to see its treatment among those less connected to computer science within the logical-philosophical community. In this paper we propose to bring to that audience a proof-theory for argument justification based on tableaux, very similar to those the Logic students are familiar with. The tableaux enable to calculate whether an argument or (...) subset of arguments are accepted or rejected in accordance to Dung’s preferred and grounded extension-based semantics. Soundness and completeness results regarding those semantics are provided. (shrink)

dialectical frameworks have been introduced as a formalism for modeling argumentation allowing general logical satisfaction conditions and the relevant argument evaluation. Different criteria used to settle the acceptance of arguments are called semantics. Semantics of ADFs have so far mainly been defined based on the concept of admissibility. However, the notion of strongly admissible semantics studied for abstract argumentation frameworks has not yet been introduced for ADFs. In the current work we present the concept of strong admissibility of interpretations for (...) ADFs. Further, we show that strongly admissible interpretations of ADFs form a lattice with the grounded interpretation as the maximal element. We also present algorithms to answer the following decision problems: whether a given interpretation is a strongly admissible interpretation of a given ADF, and whether a given argument is strongly acceptable/deniable in a given interpretation of a given ADF. In addition, we show that the strongly admissible semantics of ADFs forms a proper generalization of the strongly admissible semantics of AFs. (shrink)

The concept of strong admissibility plays an important role in dialectical proof procedures for grounded semantics allowing, as it does, concise proofs that an argument belongs to the grounded extension without having necessarily to construct this extension in full. One consequence of this property is that strong admissibility ceases to be a unique status semantics. In fact it is straightforward to construct examples for which the number of distinct strongly admissible sets is exponential in the number of arguments. We are (...) interested in characterizing properties of collections of strongly admissible sets in the sense that any system describing the strongly admissible sets of an argument framework must satisfy particular criteria. In terms of previous studies, our concern is the signature and with conditions ensuring realizability. The principal result is to demonstrate that a system of sets describes the strongly admissible sets of some framework if and only if that system has the property of being decomposable. (shrink)

Carneades is a recently proposed formalism for structured argumentation with varying proof standards, inspired by legal reasoning, but more generally applicable. Its distinctive feature is that each statement can be given its own proof standard, which is claimed to allow a more natural account of reasoning under burden of proof than existing formalisms for structured argumentation, in which proof standards are defined globally. In this article, the two formalisms are formally related by translating Carneades into the ASPIC+ framework for structured (...) argumentation. Since ASPIC+ is defined to generate Dung-style abstract argumentation frameworks, this in effect translates Carneades graphs into abstract argumentation frameworks. For this translation, we prove a formal correspondence and show that certain rationality postulates hold. It is furthermore proved that Carneades always induces a unique Dung extension, which is the same in all of Dung's semantics, allowing us to generalise Carneades to cycle-containing structures. (shrink)

Much of the formal study of algorithmic concerns with respect to semantics for abstract argumentation frameworks has focused on the issue of computational complexity. In contrast matters regarding computability have been largely neglected. Recent trends in semantics have, however, started to concentrate not so much on the formulation of novel semantics but more on identifying common properties: for example, from basic ideas such as conflict-freeness through to quite sophisticated ideas such as serializability. The aim of this paper is to look (...) at the implications these more recent studies have for computability rather than computational complexity. (shrink)

This paper aims at comparing and relating belief revision and argumentation as approaches to model reasoning processes. Referring to some prominent literature references in both fields, we will discuss their (implicit or explicit) assumptions on the modeled processes and hence commonalities and differences in the forms of reasoning they are suitable to deal with. The intended contribution is on one hand assessing the (not fully explored yet) relationships between two lively research fields in the broad area of defeasible reasoning and (...) on the other hand pointing out open issues and potential directions for future research. (shrink)

The abstract argumentation frameworks model is currently the most used tool for characterizing the justification of defeasible arguments in Artificial Intelligence. Justifications are determined on a given attack relation among arguments and are formalized as extension semantics. In this work we argue that, contrariwise to the assumptions in that model, either some argumentation frameworks are meaningless under certain concrete definitions of the attack relation, or some of the most used extension semantics in the literature, based on the defense notion of (...) admissibility, are not suitable in particular for the justification of arguments for decision making. (shrink)

In this paper, we study conditional preferences in abstract argumentation by introducing a new generalization of Dung-style argumentation frameworks (AFs) called Conditional Preference-based AFs (CPAFs). Each subset of arguments in a CPAF can be associated with its own preference relation. This generalizes existing approaches for preference-handling in abstract argumentation, and allows us to reason about conditional preferences in a general way. We conduct a principle-based analysis of CPAFs and compare them to related generalizations of AFs. Specifically, we highlight similarities and (...) differences to Modgil’s Extended AFs and show that our formalism can capture Value-based AFs. Moreover, we show that in some cases the introduction of conditional preferences leads to an increase in computational complexity. (shrink)

We reported a series of experiments carried out to confront the underlying intuitions of value-based argumentation frameworks (VAFs) with the intuitions of ordinary people. Our goal was twofold. On the one hand, we intended to test VAF as a descriptive theory of human argument evaluations. On the other, we aimed to gain new insights from empirical data that could serve to improve VAF as a normative model. The experiments showed that people’s acceptance of arguments deviates from VAF’s semantics and is (...) rather correlated with the importance given to the promoted values, independently of the perceptions of argument interactions through attacks and defeats. Furthermore, arguments were often perceived as promoting more than one value with different relative strengths. Individuals’ analyses of scenarios were also affected by external factors such as biases and arguments not explicit in the framework. Finally, we confirmed that objective acceptance, that is, the acceptance of arguments under any order of the values, was not a frequent behavior. Instead, participants tended to accept only the arguments that promoted the values they subscribe. (shrink)

In spite of significant research efforts, argument technologies do not seem poised to scale up as much as most commentators would hope or even predict. In this paper, I discuss what obstacles bar the way to more widespread success of argument technologies and venture some suggestions on how to circumvent such difficulties: doing so will require a significant shift in how this research area is typically understood and practiced. I begin by exploring a much broader yet closely related question: To (...) what extent are people natively good at arguing? This issue has always been central to philosophical reflection and it has become even more urgent nowadays, with the explosion of persuasive technologies and unprecedented opportunities for large-scale social influence. The answer hinges on what aspect of argumentation is taken under consideration: evidence suggests that people are relatively bad at analyzing the structure of arguments, especially when these are presented out of context and in abstract terms; in contrast, data show that even laymen tend to excel in the interactive practice of argumentation, in particular when motivation is high and something significant is at stake. Unfortunately, current argument technologies are more closely tailored to the former type of activity than to the latter, which is the main reason behind their relative lack of success with the general public. Changing this state of affair will require a commitment to ecological argument technologies: that is, technologies designed to support real-time, engaging and meaningful argumentative interactions performed by laypeople in their ordinary life, instead of catering to the highly specific needs of a minority of niche users. (shrink)

Reasoning and change over inconsistent knowledge bases is of utmost relevance in areas like medicine and law. Argumentation may bring the possibility to cope with both problems. Firstly, by constructing an argumentation framework from the inconsistent KB, we can decide whether to accept or reject a certain claim through the interplay among arguments and counterarguments. Secondly, by handling dynamics of arguments of the AF, we might deal with the dynamics of knowledge of the underlying inconsistent KB. Dynamics of arguments has (...) recently attracted attention and although some approaches have been proposed, a full axiomatization within the theory of belief revision was still missing. A revision arises when we want the argumentation semantics to accept an argument. Argument Theory Change encloses the revision operators that modify the AF by analyzing dialectical trees—arguments as nodes and attacks as edges—as the adopted argumentation semantics. In this article, we present a simple approach to ATC based on propositional KBs. This allows to manage change of inconsistent KBs by relying upon classical belief revision, although contrary to it, consistency restoration of the KB is avoided. Subsequently, a set of rationality postulates adapted to argumentation is given, and finally, the proposed model of change is related to the postulates through the corresponding representation theorem. Though we focus on propositional logic, the results can be easily extended to more expressive formalisms such as first-order logic and description logics, to handle evolution of ontologies. (shrink)

In the current paper, we re-examine how abstract argumentation can be formulated in terms of labellings, and how the resulting theory can be applied in the field of modal logic. In particular, we are able to express the (complete) extensions of an argumentation framework as models of a set of modal logic formulas that represents the argumentation framework. Using this approach, it becomes possible to define the grounded extension in terms of modal logic entailment.

Argumentation is a very fertile area of research in Artificial Intelligence, and various semantics have been developed to predict when an argument can be accepted, depending on the abstract structure of its defeaters and defenders. When these semantics make conflicting predictions, theoretical arbitration typically relies on ad hoc examples and normative intuition about what prediction ought to be the correct one. We advocate a complementary, descriptive-experimental method, based on the collection of behavioral data about the way human reasoners handle these (...) critical cases. We report two studies applying this method to the case of reinstatement (both in its simple and floating forms). Results speak for the cognitive plausibility of reinstatement and yet show that it does not yield the full expected recovery of the attacked argument. Furthermore, results show that floating reinstatement yields comparable effects to that of simple reinstatement, thus arguing in favor of preferred argumentation semantics, rather than grounded argumentation semantics. Besides their theoretical value for validating and inspiring argumentation semantics, these results have applied value for developing artificial agents meant to argue with human users. (shrink)

In this paper, we present a discussion game for argumentation under stable semantics. Our work is inspired by Vreeswijk and Prakken, who have defined a similar game for preferred semantics. In the current paper, we restate Vreeswijk and Prakken's work using the approach of argument labellings and then show how it can be adjusted for stable semantics. The nature of the resulting argument game is somewhat unusual, since stable semantics does not satisfy the property of relevance.

The principle-based approach is a methodology to classify and analyse argumentation semantics. In this paper we classify seven of the main alternatives for argumentation semantics using a set of new robustness principles. These principles complement Baroni and Giacomin’s original classification and deal with the behaviour of a semantics when the argumentation framework changes due to the addition or removal of an attack between two arguments. We distinguish so-called persistence principles and monotonicity principles, where the former deal with the question of (...) whether a labelling or extension of an argumentation framework under a given semantics persists after a change, and the latter with the question of whether new labellings or extensions are created after a change. We furthermore show in which sense labelling-based and extension-based semantics lead to subtly different principles and results. Our results can be used for choosing a semantics for a particular application, or to guide the search for new argumentation semantics, but they have been used also in the design of algorithms. (shrink)

Dung’s abstract argumentation provides us with a general framework to deal with argumentation, non-monotonic reasoning and logic programming. For the extension-based semantics, one of the basic principles is I-maximality which is in particular related with the notion of skeptical justification. Another one is directionality which can be employed for the study of dynamics of argumentation. In this paper, we introduce two new extension-based semantics into Dung’s abstract argumentation, called grounded-like semantics and initial semantics which satisfy the I-maximality and directionality principles. (...) The initial semantics has many good properties and can be expected to play a central role in studying other extension-based semantics, such as admissible, complete and preferred semantics. (shrink)

In this paper, we introduce the methodology and techniques of metaargumentation to model argumentation. The methodology of meta-argumentation instantiates Dung's abstract argumentation theory with an extended argumentation theory, and is thus based on a combination of the methodology of instantiating abstract arguments, and the methodology of extending Dung's basic argumentation frameworks with other relations among abstract arguments. The technique of meta-argumentation applies Dung's theory of abstract argumentation to itself, by instantiating Dung's abstract arguments with meta-arguments using a technique called flattening. (...) We characterize the domain of instantiation using a representation technique based on soundness and completeness. Finally, we distinguish among various instantiations using the technique of specification languages. (shrink)

While agent-based modelling languages naturally implement concurrency, the currently available languages for argumentation do not allow to explicitly model this type of interaction. In this paper we introduce a concurrent language for handling agents arguing and communicating using a shared argumentation space. We also show how to perform high-level operations like persuasion and negotiation through basic belief revision constructs, and present a working implementation of the language and the associated web interface.

While the philosophical literature has extensively studied how decisions relate to arguments, reasons and justifications, decision theory almost entirely ignores the latter notions. In this article, we elaborate a formal framework to introduce in decision theory the stance that decision-makers take towards arguments and counter-arguments. We start from a decision situation, where an individual requests decision support. We formally define, as a commendable basis for decision-aid, this individual’s deliberated judgment, a notion inspired by Rawls’ contributions to the philosophical literature, and (...) embodying the requirement that the decision-maker should carefully examine arguments and counter-arguments. We explain how models of deliberated judgment can be validated empirically. We then identify conditions upon which the existence of a valid model can be taken for granted, and analyze how these conditions can be relaxed. We then explore the significance of our framework for the practice of decision analysis. Our framework opens avenues for future research involving both philosophy and decision theory, as well as empirical implementations. (shrink)

Formal arguments are often represented by pairs, but in this paper we consider normative arguments represented by sequences of triples, where constitutive norms derive institutional facts from brute facts, and regulative norms derive deontic facts like obligations and permissions from institutional facts. The institutional facts may be seen as the reasons explaining or warranting the deontic obligations and permissions, and therefore they can be attacked by other normative arguments too. We represent different aspects of normative reasoning by different kinds of (...) consistency checks among these triples, and we use formal argumentation theory to resolve conflicts among such normative arguments. In particular, we introduce various requirements for arguing about norms concerning violations, contrary-to-duty obligations, dilemmas, conflict resolution and different kinds of norms, and we introduce a formal argumentation theory satisfying the requirements. In order to illustrate our framework, we introduce a running example based on university regulations for prospective and actual students. (shrink)

Much like admissibility is the key concept underlying preferred semantics, strong admissibility is the key concept underlying grounded semantics, as membership of a strongly admissible set is sufficient to show membership of the grounded extension. As such, strongly admissible sets and labellings can be used as an explanation of membership of the grounded extension, as is for instance done in some of the proof procedures for grounded semantics. In the current paper, we present two polynomial algorithms for constructing relatively small (...) strongly admissible labellings, with associated min–max numberings, for a particular argument. These labellings can be used as relatively small explanations for the argument’s membership of the grounded extension. Although our algorithms are not guaranteed to yield an absolute minimal strongly admissible labelling for the argument (as doing so would have implied an exponential complexity), our best performing algorithm yields results that are only marginally larger. Moreover, the runtime of this algorithm is an order of magnitude smaller than that of the existing approach for computing an absolute minimal strongly admissible labelling for a particular argument. As such, we believe that our algorithms can be of practical value in situations where the aim is to construct a minimal or near-minimal strongly admissible labelling in a time-efficient way. (shrink)

The connection between logic programming and formal argumentation has been studied starting from the landmark 1995 paper of Dung. Subsequent work has identified a standard translation from logic programs to argumentation frameworks, under which pairwise correspondences hold between various logic programming semantics and various formal argumentation semantics. This includes the correspondence between 3-valued stable and complete semantics, between well-founded and grounded semantics and between 2-valued stable and stable semantics. In the current paper, we show that the existing translation is able (...) to yield the additional correspondence between ideal semantics for logic programming and ideal semantics for formal argumentation. We also show that correspondence does not hold between eager semantics for logic programming and eager semantics for formal argumentation, at least when translating from logic programming to formal argumentation. Overall, the current work should be seen as completing the analysis of correspondences between mainstream admissibility-based argumentation semantics and their logic programming counterparts. (shrink)

In the current paper we re-examine the concepts of attack semantics and collective attacks in abstract argumentation, and examine how these concepts interact with each other. For this, we systematically map the space of possibilities. Starting with standard argumentation frameworks (which consist of a directed graph with nodes and arrows) we briefly state both node semantics and arrow semantics (the latter a.k.a. attack semantics) in both their extensions-based form and labellings-based form. We then proceed with SETAFs (which consist of a (...) directed hypergraph of nodes and arrows, to take into account the notion of collective attacks) and state both node semantics and arrow semantics, in both their extensions-based and labellings-based form. We then show equivalence between the extensions-based and labellings-based form, for node semantics and arrow semantics of AFs, as well as for node semantics and arrow semantics of SETAFs. Moreover, we show equivalence between node semantics and arrow semantics for AFs, and equivalence between node semantics and arrow semantics for SETAFs (with the notable exception of semi-stable). We also provide a novel way of converting a SETAF to an AF such that semantics are preserved, without the use of any “meta arguments”. Although the main part of our work is on the level of abstract argumentation, we do provide an application of our theory on the instantiated level. More specifically, we show that the classical characterisation of Assumption-Based Argumentation (ABA) can be seen as an instantiation based on a SETAF, whereas the contemporary characterisation of ABA can be seen as an instantiation based on a standard AF. Our theory of how to convert a SETAF to an AF can then be used to account for both the similarities and the differences between the classical and contemporary characterisations of ABA. Most prominently, our theory is able to explain the semantic mismatch for semi-stable semantics that arises in the ABA instantiation process. (shrink)

In this paper, we introduce the methodology and techniques of meta-argumentation to model argumentation. The methodology of meta-argumentation instantiates Dung’s abstract argumentation theory with an extended argumentation theory, and is thus based on a combination of the methodology of instantiating abstract arguments, and the methodology of extending Dung’s basic argumentation frameworks with other relations among abstract arguments. The technique of meta-argumentation applies Dung’s theory of abstract argumentation to itself, by instantiating Dung’s abstract arguments with meta-arguments using a technique called flattening. (...) We characterize the domain of instantiation using a representation technique based on soundness and completeness. Finally, we distinguish among various instantiations using the technique of specification languages. (shrink)

Structured argumentation systems, and their implementation, represent an important research subject in the area of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. Structured argumentation advances over abstract argumentation frameworks by providing the internal construction of the arguments that are usually defined by a set of (strict and defeasible) rules. By considering the structure of arguments, it becomes possible to analyze reasons for and against a conclusion, and the warrant status of such a claim in the context of a knowledge base represents the main (...) output of a dialectical process. Computing such statuses is a costly process, and any update to the knowledge base could potentially have a huge impact if done naively. In this work, we investigate the case of updates consisting of both additions and removals of pieces of knowledge in the Defeasible Logic Programming (DeLP) framework, first analyzing the complexity of the problem and then identifying conditions under which we can avoid unnecessary computations—central to this is the development of structures (e.g. graphs) to keep track of which results can potentially be affected by a given update. We introduce a technique for the incremental computation of the warrant statuses of conclusions in DeLP knowledge bases that evolve due to the application of (sets of) updates. We present the results of a thorough experimental evaluation showing that our incremental approach yields significantly faster running times in practice, as well as overall fewer recomputations, even in the case of sets of updates performed simultaneously. (shrink)