Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

European Workshop on Logics in Artificial Intelligence

JELIA 2000: Logics in Artificial Intelligence pp 239–253Cite as

Credulous and Sceptical Argument Games for Preferred Semantics

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 1919))

Abstract

This paper presents dialectical proof theories for Dung’s pre-ferred semantics of defeasible argumentation. The proof theories have the form of argument games for testing membership of some (credulous reasoning) or all preferred extensions (sceptical reasoning). The credulous proof theory is for the general case, while the sceptical version is for the case where preferred semantics coincides with stable semantics. The development of these argument games is especially motivated by applica-tions of argumentation in automated negotiation, mediation of collective discussion and decision making, and intelligent tutoring.

This is a preview of subscription content, 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

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. V. Aleven and K.D. Ashley. Evaluating a learning environment for case-based argumentation skills. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pages 170–179, New York, 1997. ACM Press.

    Google Scholar 

  2. L. Amgoud, N. Maudet, and S. Parsons. Modelling dialogues using argumentation.In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Mul tiAgent Systems Boston, MA, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  3. T.J.M. Bench-Capon. Specification and implementation of Toulmin dialogue game. In Legal Knowledge-Based Systems. JURIX: The Eleventh Conference, pages 5–19, Nijmegen, 1998. Gerard Noodt Instituut.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. G. Brewka. A reconstruction of Rescher’s theory of formal disputation based on default logic. In A. Cohn, editor, Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 366–370. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  6. G. Brewka. Dynamic argument systems: a formal model of argumentation pro-cesses based on situation calculus. Journal of Logic and Computation, 2000. To appear.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Y. Dimopoulos, B. Nebel, and F. Toni. Preferred arguments are harder to compute than stable extensions. In T. Dean, editor, Proc. of the 16th Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI99), pages 36–41. Morgan Kaufmann, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  8. P.M. Dung. Logic programming as dialog game. Unpublished paper, Division of Computer Science, Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  10. T.F. Gordon. The Pleadings Game: An Artificial Intelligence Model of Procedural Justice. Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1995. Revised edition of the author’s Ph.D. thesis (same title), Technische Hochschule, Darmstadt, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  11. T.F. Gordon, N Karaçapilidis, H. Voss, and A. Zauke. Computer-mediated co-operative spatial planning. In H. Timmermans, editor, Decision Support Systems in Urban Planning, pages 299–309. E & FN SPON Publishers London 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  12. F. Grasso, A. Cawsey, and R. Jones. Dialectical argumentation to solve conflicts in advice giving: a case study in the promotion of healthy nutrition. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 2000. To appear.

    Google Scholar 

  13. J.C. Hage, R.E. Leenes, and A.R. Lodder. Hard cases: a procedural approach. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 2:113–166, 1994.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. H. Jakobovits and D. Vermeir. Dialectic semantics for argumentation frameworks.In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pages 53–62, New York, 1999. ACM Press.

    Google Scholar 

  15. A.C. Kakas and F. Toni. Computing argumentation in logic programming. Journal of Logic and Computation, 9:515–562, 1999.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  16. S. Kraus, K. Sycara, and A. Evenchik. Reaching agreements through argumenta-tion: a logical model and implementation. Artificial Intelligence, 104:1–69, 1998.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  17. A.R. Lodder. DiaLaw: On Legal Justification and Dialogical Models of Argumen-tation. Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  18. R.P. Loui. Process and policy: Resource-bounded nondemonstrative reasoning. Computational Intelligence, 14(1):1–38, 1998.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  19. N. Maudet and D. Moore. Dialogue games for computer-supported collaborative argumentation. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Computer-Supported Col labo-rative Argumentation for Learning Communities, Stanford, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  21. J.L. Pollock. Cognitive Carpentry. A Blueprint for How to Build a Person. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  22. H. Prakken. On dialogue systems with speech acts, arguments, and counterargu-ments. 2000. These proceedings.

    Google Scholar 

  23. H. Prakken. Relating protocols for dynamic dispute with logics for defeasible argumentation. Synthese, 2000. To appear in special issue on New Perspectives in Dialogical Logics.

    Google Scholar 

  24. H. Prakken and G. Sartor. Argument-based extended logic programming with defeasible priorities. Journal of Applied Non-classical Logics, 7:25–75, 1997.

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  25. H. Prakken and G.A.W. Vreeswijk. Logical systems for defeasible argumentation. To appear in D. Gabbay (ed.), Handbook of Philosophical Logic, 2nd edition. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht etc., 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  26. G.R. Simari, C.I. Chesñevar, and A.J. Garcia. The role of dialectics in defeasible argumentation. In Proceedings of the XIV International Conference of the Chilean Computer Science Society, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  27. D. Suthers, A. Weiner, J. Connelly, and M. Paolucci. Belvedere: engaging students in critical discussion of science and public policy issues. In Proceedings of the Seventh World Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education, pages 266–273, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  28. H.B. Verheij. Automated argument assistance for lawyers. In Proc. of the Seventh Int. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pages 43–52, New York, 1999. ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  29. G.A.W. Vreeswijk. Defeasible dialectics: A controversy-oriented approach towards defeasible argumentation. The Journal of Logic and Computation, 3(3):3–27, 1993.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  30. G.A.W. Vreeswijk. Abstract argumentation systems. Artificial Intelligence 90:225–279, 1997.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Information and Computing Sciences, Utrecht University, The Netherlands

    Gerard A. W. Vreeswik & Henry Prakken

Authors
  1. Gerard A. W. Vreeswik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Henry Prakken
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Applied Mathematics, E.T.S.I. Informática, University of Málaga, 29071, Málaga, Spain

    Manuel Ojeda-Aciego  & Inma P. de Guzmán  & 

  2. Intelligent Systems Department, Computer Science Institute, University of Leipzig, Augustusplatz 10-11, 04109, Leipzig, Germany

    Gerhard Brewka

  3. Center for Artificial Intelligence, Department of Computer Science, University of Lisbon, 2825-114, Caparica, Portugal

    Luís Moniz Pereira

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2000 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Vreeswik, G.A.W., Prakken, H. (2000). Credulous and Sceptical Argument Games for Preferred Semantics. In: Ojeda-Aciego, M., de Guzmán, I.P., Brewka, G., Moniz Pereira, L. (eds) Logics in Artificial Intelligence. JELIA 2000. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 1919. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-40006-0_17

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-40006-0_17

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-41131-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-40006-6

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation