Abstract
At a high level of abstraction, many systems of argumentation can be represented by a set of abstract arguments, and a binary relation between these abstract arguments describing how they contradict each other. Acceptable sets of arguments, called extensions, can be defined as sets of arguments that do not contradict one another, and attack all their attackers. We are interested in this paper in answering the question: is a given argument in all extensions of an argumentation system? In fact, what is likely to be useful in AI systems is not a simple yes/no answer, but some kind of well-argued answer, called a proof: if an argument is in every extension, why is it so? Several authors have described proofs that explain why a given argument is in at least one extension. In this paper, we show that a proof that an argument is in every extension can be a proof that some meta-argument is in at least one extension of a meta-argumentation system: this meta-argumentation system describes relationships between sets of arguments of the initial system.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Bondarenko, A., Dung, P., Kowalski, R., Toni, F.: An abstract, argumentationtheoretic approach to default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 93, 63–101 (1997)
Dimopoulos, Y., Torres, A.: Graph theoretical structures in logic programs and default theories. Theoretical Computer Science 170, 209–244 (1996)
Dimopoulos, Y., Magirou, V., Papadimitriou, C.: On kernels, Defaults and Even Graphs. Annals of Mathematics and AI, 1–12 (1997)
Berge, C.: Graphs and Hypergraphs. North-Holland, Amsterdam (1973)
Dung, P.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence 77, 321–357 (1995)
Kakas, A., Toni, F.: Computing Argumentation in Logic Programming. Journal of Logic and Computation 9, 515–562 (1999)
Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: Argument-based logic programming with defeasible priorities. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 7, 25–75 (1997)
Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C.: A reasoning model based on the production of acceptable arguments. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 34, 197–215 (2002)
Vreeswijk, G., Prakken, H.: Credulous and Sceptical Argument Games for Preferred Semantics. In: Brewka, G., Moniz Pereira, L., Ojeda-Aciego, M., de Guzmán, I.P. (eds.) JELIA 2000. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1919, pp. 239–253. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)
Cayrol, C., Doutre, S., Mengin, J.: On Decision Problems related to the preferred semantics for argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation 13, 377–403 (2003)
Doutre, S., Mengin, J.: On sceptical vs credulous acceptance for abstract argument systems. In: Tenth International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning (NMR 2004), pp. 134–139 (2004)
Doutre, S.: Autour de la sémantique préférée des systèmes d’argumentation. PhD Thesis, Université Paul Sabatier, Toulouse (2002)
Jakobovits, H., Vermeir, D.: Dialectic Semantics for Argumentation Frameworks. In: Proc. ICAIL 1999, pp. 53–62. ACM Press, New York (1999)
Dimopoulos, Y., Nebel, B., Toni, F.: On the Computational Complexity of Assumption-based Argumentation for Default Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 141, 57–78 (2002)
Dunne, P., Bench-Capon, T.: Coherence in Finite Argument Systems. Artificial Intelligence 141, 187–203 (2002)
Baker, A.B., Ginsberg, M.L.: A theorem prover for prioritized circumscription. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 463–467. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1989)
Poole, D.L.: Explanation and prediction: an architecture for default and abductive reasoning. Computational Intelligence 5, 97–110 (1989)
Przymusinski, T.: An algorithm to compute circumscription. Artificial Intelligence 38, 49–73 (1989)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2004 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Doutre, S., Mengin, J. (2004). On Sceptical Versus Credulous Acceptance for Abstract Argument Systems. In: Alferes, J.J., Leite, J. (eds) Logics in Artificial Intelligence. JELIA 2004. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 3229. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-30227-8_39
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-30227-8_39
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-23242-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-30227-8
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive