Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Dialectical Proof Theories for the Credulous Preferred Semantics of Argumentation Frameworks

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty (ECSQARU 2001)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 2143))

Abstract

Argumentation is a natural form of reasoning, in which two agents cooperate in order to establish the validity of a given argument that could be used to deduce some conclusion of interest. An interesting semantics for logical systems of argumentation is Dung’s “preferred semantics”, which ameliorates in some ways the better-known stable semantics. In this paper, we present proof theories for the credulous decision problem associated with the preferred semantics: is a given argument in at least one extension of a given argumentation framework? Our proof theories improve on the one by [VP00], in the sense that a proof for a given argument is usually shorter with our system.

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 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
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. Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C: A reasoning model based on the production of acceptable arguments. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Uncertainty Frameworks in Non-monotonic Reasoning, NMR 2000, Breckenbridge, Colorado, April 9–11, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bondarenko, A., Dung, P.M., Kowalski, R.A., Toni, F.: An abstract, argumentation-theoretic approach to default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 931997, 63–101.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  3. Berge, C: Graphs and Hypergraphs, vol. 6 of North-Holland Mathematical Library, North-Holland 1973.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Cayrol, C, Doutre, S., Mengin, J.: Dialectical Proof Theories for the Credulous Preferred Semantics of Argumentation Frameworks. Research report, 2001-09-R, IRIT, May 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Chesñevar, CL, Maguitman, A.G., Loui, R.P.: Logical Models of Argument. ACM Computing Surveys 32(4) 2000, 337–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Dimopoulos, Y., Magirou, V., Papadimitriou, C.H.: On kernels, Defaults and Even Graphs. Annals of Mathematics and AI 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence 77 1995, 321–357.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  8. Doutre, S., Mengin, J.: Preferred Extensions of Argumentation Frameworks: Computation and Query Answering. In Proceedings of the Int. Joint Conf. on Automated Reasoning (IJCAR 2001), Siena, Italy, June 18–23 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Ginsberg, M.: A circumscriptive theorem prover. Artificial Intelligence, 39 1989 209–230.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  10. Kakas, A.C., Toni, F.: Computing Argumentation in Logic Programming. Journal of Logic and Computation 9(4) 1999, 515–562.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  11. Jakobovits, H., Vermeir, D.: Dialectic Semantics for Argumentation Frameworks. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, (ACM Press) 1999, 53–62.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Poole, D.: Explanation and prediction: an architecture for default and abductive reasoning. Computational Intelligence Journal 5 1989 97–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Przymusinski, T.: An algorithm to compute circumscription. Artificial Intelligence, 38 198949–73.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  14. Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: Argument-Based Extended logic Programming with Defeasible Priorities. Journal of Applied Non-classical Logics 7 1997 25–75.

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  15. Reiter, R.: A logic for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 13 1980 81–132.

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  16. Vreeswijk, G., Prakken, H.: Credulous and Sceptical Argument Games for Preferred Semantics. In Proceedings of the European Workshop on Logics in Artificial Intelligence (JELIA 2000) LNA1 1919, Springer Verlag 2000.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institut de Recherche en Informatique de Toulouse, Université Paul Sabatier, 118 route de Narbonne, F 31062, Toulouse Cedex 4

    Claudette Cayrol, Sylvie Doutre & Jérôme Mengin

Authors
  1. Claudette Cayrol
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sylvie Doutre
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jérôme Mengin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Université Paul Sabatier, IRIT-CNRS, 118 route de Narbonne, 31062, Toulouse Cedex 4, France

    Salem Benferhat  & Philippe Besnard  & 

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2001 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Cayrol, C., Doutre, S., Mengin, J. (2001). Dialectical Proof Theories for the Credulous Preferred Semantics of Argumentation Frameworks. In: Benferhat, S., Besnard, P. (eds) Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty. ECSQARU 2001. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 2143. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44652-4_59

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44652-4_59

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-42464-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-44652-1

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation