Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Flexible Dispute Derivations with Forward and Backward Arguments for Assumption-Based Argumentation

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Logic and Argumentation (CLAR 2021)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 13040))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 843 Accesses

Abstract

Assumption-based argumentation (ABA) is one of the main general frameworks for structured argumentation. Dispute derivations for ABA allow for evaluating claims in a dialectical manner: i.e. on the basis of an exchange of arguments and counter-arguments for a claim between a proponent and an opponent of the claim. Current versions of dispute derivations are geared towards determining (credulous) acceptance of claims w.r.t. the admissibility-based semantics that ABA inherits from abstract argumentation. Relatedly, they make use of backwards or top down reasoning for constructing arguments. In this work we define flexible dispute derivations with forward as well as backward reasoning allowing us, in particular, to also have dispute derivations for finding admissible, complete, and stable assumption sets rather than only determine acceptability of claims. We give an argumentation-based definition of such dispute derivations and a more implementation friendly alternative representation in which disputes involve exchange of claims and rules rather than arguments. These can be seen as elaborations on, in particular, existing graph-based dispute derivations on two fronts: first, in also allowing for forward reasoning; second, in that all arguments put forward in the dispute are represented by a graph and not only the proponents.

This research was partially funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) – project number 389792660 – TRR 248, and by the Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF) Förderkennzeichen 01IS20056_NAVAS.

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 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
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.

    Note that in [10, 33] the rules blocked for the proponent and opponent are identical (i.e. \(\mathscr {R}^-\)), while we use the stronger notion of blocked rules for the proponent \(\mathscr {R}^{\sim }\).

  2. 2.

    https://github.com/gorczyca/aba-dd-rule-based.

References

  1. Amgoud, L., Besnard, P., Vesic, S.: Equivalence in logic-based argumentation. J. Appl. Non Class. Logics 24(3), 181–208 (2014)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  2. Besnard, P., et al.: Introduction to structured argumentation. Argum. Comput. 5(1), 1–4 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bondarenko, A., Dung, P.M., Kowalski, R.A., Toni, F.: An abstract, argumentation-theoretic approach to default reasoning. Artif. Intell. 93, 63–101 (1997)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  4. Bondarenko, A., Toni, F., Kowalski, R.A.: An assumption-based framework for non-monotonic reasoning. In: LPNMR, pp. 171–189. MIT Press (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Booth, R., Caminada, M., Marshall, B.: DISCO: a web-based implementation of discussion games for grounded and preferred semantics. In: COMMA. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 305, pp. 453–454. IOS Press (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Borg, A., Straßer, C.: Relevance in structured argumentation. In: IJCAI, pp. 1753–1759. ijcai.org (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Caminada, M.: A discussion game for grounded semantics. In: Black, E., Modgil, S., Oren, N. (eds.) TAFA 2015. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 9524, pp. 59–73. Springer, Cham (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28460-6_4

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. Caminada, M.: Argumentation semantics as formal discussion. In: Baroni, P., Gabbay, D., Giacomin, M. (eds.) Handbook of Formal Argumentation, pp. 487–518. College Publications (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Cerutti, F., Gaggl, S.A., Thimm, M., Wallner, J.P.: Foundations of implementations for formal argumentation. In: Baroni, P., Gabbay, D., Giacomin, M. (eds.) Handbook of Formal Argumentation, pp. 689–768. College Publications (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Craven, R., Toni, F.: Argument graphs and assumption-based argumentation. Artif. Intell. 233, 1–59 (2016)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  11. Craven, R., Toni, F., Williams, M.: Graph-based dispute derivations in assumption-based argumentation. In: Black, E., Modgil, S., Oren, N. (eds.) TAFA 2013. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 8306, pp. 46–62. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-54373-9_4

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Cyras, K., Fan, X., Schulz, C., Toni, F.: Assumption-based argumentation: disputes, explanations, preferences. In: Baroni, P., Gabbay, D., Giacomin, M. (eds.) Handbook of Formal Argumentation, pp. 365–408. College Publications (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Doutre, S., Mengin, J.: On sceptical versus credulous acceptance for abstract argument systems. In: Alferes, J.J., Leite, J. (eds.) JELIA 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3229, pp. 462–473. Springer, Heidelberg (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-30227-8_39

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif. Intell. 77(2), 321–358 (1995)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  15. Dung, P.M., Kowalski, R.A., Toni, F.: Dialectic proof procedures for assumption-based, admissible argumentation. Artif. Intell. 170(2), 114–159 (2006)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  16. Dung, P.M., Kowalski, R.A., Toni, F.: Assumption-based argumentation. In: Simari, G.R., Rahwan, I. (eds.) Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 199–218. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-98197-0_10

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  18. Dung, P.M., Thang, P.M.: Closure and consistency in logic-associated argumentation. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 49, 79–109 (2014)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  19. Efstathiou, V., Hunter, A.: Algorithms for generating arguments and counterarguments in propositional logic. Int. J. Approx. Reason. 52(6), 672–704 (2011)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  20. Gaertner, D., Toni, F.: Hybrid argumentation and its properties. In: COMMA. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 172, pp. 183–195. IOS Press (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Jakobovits, H., Vermeir, D.: Dialectic semantics for argumentation frameworks. In: ICAIL, pp. 53–62. ACM (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Keshavarzi Zafarghandi, A., Verbrugge, R., Verheij, B.: Discussion games for preferred semantics of abstract dialectical frameworks. In: Kern-Isberner, G., Ognjanović, Z. (eds.) ECSQARU 2019. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 11726, pp. 62–73. Springer, Cham (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29765-7_6

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  23. Keshavarzi Zafarghandi, A., Verbrugge, R., Verheij, B.: A discussion game for the grounded semantics of abstract dialectical frameworks. In: COMMA. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 326, pp. 431–442. IOS Press (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Lehtonen, T., Wallner, J.P., Järvisalo, M.: From structured to abstract argumentation: assumption-based acceptance via AF reasoning. In: Antonucci, A., Cholvy, L., Papini, O. (eds.) ECSQARU 2017. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 10369, pp. 57–68. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61581-3_6

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  25. Lehtonen, T., Wallner, J.P., Järvisalo, M.: Reasoning over assumption-based argumentation frameworks via direct answer set programming encodings. In: AAAI, pp. 2938–2945. AAAI Press (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Modgil, S., Caminada, M.: Proof theories and algorithms for abstract argumentation frameworks. In: Simari, G.R., Rahwan, I. (eds.) Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 105–129. Springer, Boston (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-98197-0_6

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  27. Modgil, S., Prakken, H.: Abstract rule-based argumentation. In: Baroni, P., Gabbay, D., Giacomin, M. (eds.) Handbook of Formal Argumentation, pp. 287–364. College Publications (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Prakken, H.: An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. Argum. Comput. 1(2), 93–124 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: Argument-based extended logic programming with defeasible priorities. J. Appl. Non Class. Logics 7(1), 25–75 (1997)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  30. Strass, H., Wyner, A., Diller, M.: EMIL: extracting meaning from inconsistent language: towards argumentation using a controlled natural language interface. Int. J. Approx. Reason. 112, 55–84 (2019)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  31. Thang, P.M., Dung, P.M., Hung, N.D.: Towards a common framework for dialectical proof procedures in abstract argumentation. J. Log. Comput. 19(6), 1071–1109 (2009)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  32. Thimm, M., Rienstra, T.: Approximate reasoning with ASPIC+ by argument sampling. In: SAFA@COMMA. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 2672, pp. 22–33. CEUR-WS.org (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  33. Toni, F.: A generalised framework for dispute derivations in assumption-based argumentation. Artif. Intell. 195, 1–43 (2013)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  34. Toni, F.: A tutorial on assumption-based argumentation. Argum. Comput. 5(1), 89–117 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Vreeswik, G.A.W., Prakken, H.: Credulous and sceptical argument games for preferred semantics. In: Ojeda-Aciego, M., de Guzmán, I.P., Brewka, G., Moniz Pereira, L. (eds.) JELIA 2000. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1919, pp. 239–253. Springer, Heidelberg (2000). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-40006-0_17

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  36. Yun, B., Oren, N., Croitoru, M.: Efficient construction of structured argumentation systems. In: COMMA. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 326, pp. 411–418. IOS Press (2020)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Logic Programming and Argumentation Group, Faculty of Computer Science, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany

    Martin Diller, Sarah Alice Gaggl & Piotr Gorczyca

Authors
  1. Martin Diller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sarah Alice Gaggl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Piotr Gorczyca
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Martin Diller .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Information Engineering, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy

    Pietro Baroni

  2. Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    Christoph Benzmüller

  3. Department of Philosophy (Zhuhai), Sun Yat-sen University, Zhuhai, China

    Yὶ N. Wáng

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Diller, M., Gaggl, S.A., Gorczyca, P. (2021). Flexible Dispute Derivations with Forward and Backward Arguments for Assumption-Based Argumentation. In: Baroni, P., Benzmüller, C., Wáng, Y.N. (eds) Logic and Argumentation. CLAR 2021. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 13040. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-89391-0_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-89391-0_9

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-89390-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-89391-0

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation