Collective Argumentation and Disjunctive Logic Programming

Bochman, Alexander

doi:10.1093/logcom/13.3.405

Cited by 37 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…16,17 A collective argumentation framework is an abstract framework where the initial data are a set of arguments and a binary "attack" relation between sets of arguments. The main idea is the following: A set of arguments can produce an attack against other arguments, which is not reducible to attacks between particular arguments.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Coalitions of arguments: A tool for handling bipolar argumentation frameworks

Cayrol

Lagasquie-Schiex

2010

Int. J. Intell. Syst.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bipolar argumentation frameworks enable to represent two kinds of interaction between arguments: support and conflict. In this paper, we turn a bipolar argumentation framework into a meta-argumentation framework where conflicts occur between sets of arguments, characterized as coalitions of supporting arguments. So, Dung's well-known semantics can be used on this meta-argumentation framework to select the acceptable arguments. C 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Coalitions of arguments: A tool for handling bipolar argumentation frameworks

Cayrol

Lagasquie-Schiex

2010

Int. J. Intell. Syst.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…On the other hand, in [14]'s example above, B fully supports X, enabling reconstruction of an argument. [12] and [4] extend DFs with collective attacks. In particular, in [12], individual arguments can be attacked by non-empty sets of arguments:…”

Section: Support Relationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Revisiting Abstract Argumentation Frameworks

Modgil

2014

Theory and Applications of Formal Argumentation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper argues that many extensions of Dung's framework incorporating relations additional to binary attacks, are best viewed as abstractions of human rather than computational models of reasoning and debate. The paper then discusses how these additional relations may be reified into object level knowledge, thus enabling reconstruction of the extended framework as a Dung framework, and providing rational guidance for further reasoning and debate.

show abstract

“…Our motivation is that Dung's assumption that the attack relation exists between individual arguments instead of sets of arguments is quite strong, and it is not warranted in cases where the cumulative weight of arguments is decisive [8,41]. For example, in some legal cases, circumstantial evidence may be used in a cumulative way.…”

Section: A Possible Worlds Semanticsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…5. ag 8 wants to verify the following requirement: if for every argument attacking argument d, then there exists in her framework another argument which defends d. The requirement, expressed in MLA4SV, is verified for the argumentation framework AF 8 …”

Section: Example 13mentioning

confidence: 99%

A logic of argumentation for specification and verification of abstract argumentation frameworks

Villata

Boella

Gabbay

et al. 2012

Ann Math Artif Intell

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, we propose a logic of argumentation for the specification and verification (LA4SV) of requirements on Dung's abstract argumentation frameworks. We distinguish three kinds of decision problems for argumentation verification, called extension verification, framework verification, and specification verification respectively. For example, given a political requirement like "if the argument to increase taxes is accepted, then the argument to increase services must be accepted too," we can either verify an extension of acceptable arguments, or all extensions of an argumentation framework, or all extensions of all argumentation frameworks satisfying a framework specification. We introduce the logic of argumentation verification to specify such requirements, and we represent the three verification problems of argumentation as model checking and theorem proving properties of the logic. Moreover, we recast the logic of argumentation verification in a modal framework, in order to express multiple extensions, and properties like transitivity and reflexivity of the attack relation. Finally, we introduce a logic of meta-argumentation where abstract argumentation is used to reason about abstract argumentation itself. We define the logic of meta-argumentation using the fibring methodology in such a way to represent attack relations not only among arguments but also among attacks. We show how to use this logic to verify the requirements of argumentation frameworks where higher-order attacks are allowed [A preliminary version of the logic of argumentation compliance was called the logic of abstract argumentation (Boella et al. 2005)].

show abstract

Collective Argumentation and Disjunctive Logic Programming

Cited by 37 publications

References 15 publications

Coalitions of arguments: A tool for handling bipolar argumentation frameworks

Coalitions of arguments: A tool for handling bipolar argumentation frameworks

Revisiting Abstract Argumentation Frameworks

A logic of argumentation for specification and verification of abstract argumentation frameworks

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About