Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Some Reflections on Two Current Trends in Formal Argumentation

  • Chapter
Logic Programs, Norms and Action

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 7360))

Abstract

This paper discusses two recent developments in the formal study of argumentation-based inference: work on preference-based abstract argumentation and on classical (deductive) argumentation. It is first argued that general models of the use of preferences in argumentation cannot leave the structure of arguments and the nature of attack and defeat unspecified. Then it is claimed that classical argumentation cannot model some common forms of defeasible reasoning in a natural way. In both cases it will be argued that the recently proposed ASPIC  +  framework for structured argumentation does not suffer from these limitations. In the final part of the paper the work of Marek Sergot on argumentation-based inference will be discussed in light of the preceding discussion.

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 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

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Amgoud, L., Besnard, P.: Bridging the Gap between Abstract Argumentation Systems and Logic. In: Godo, L., Pugliese, A. (eds.) SUM 2009. LNCS, vol. 5785, pp. 12–27. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  2. Amgoud, L., Besnard, P.: A Formal Analysis of Logic-Based Argumentation Systems. In: Deshpande, A., Hunter, A. (eds.) SUM 2010. LNCS, vol. 6379, pp. 42–55. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  3. Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C.: On the acceptability of arguments in preference-based argumentation. In: Proceedings of the 14th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 1–7 (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C.: A model of reasoning based on the production of acceptable arguments. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 34, 197–215 (2002)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Amgoud, L., Vesic, S.: Two Roles of Preferences in Argumentation Frameworks. In: Liu, W. (ed.) ECSQARU 2011. LNCS, vol. 6717, pp. 86–97. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. Artikis, A., Sergot, M.J., Pitt, J.: An executable specification of a formal argumentation protocol. Artificial Intelligence 171, 776–804 (2007)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. 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 (1989)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation 13, 429–448 (2003)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Bench-Capon, T.J.M., Sergot, M.J.: Towards a rule-based representation of open texture in law. In: Walter, C. (ed.) Computing Power and Legal Language, pp. 39–60. Greenwood/Quorum Press, Westport (1988)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Besnard, P., Hunter, A.: A logic-based theory of deductive arguments. Artificial Intelligence 128, 203–235 (2001)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Besnard, P., Hunter, A.: Elements of Argumentation. MIT Press, Cambridge (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Bex, F.J.: Evidence for a Good Story. A Hybrid Theory of Arguments, Stories and Criminal Evidence. Doctoral dissertation Faculty of Law, University of Groningen (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Bex, F.J., Prakken, H., Reed, C., Walton, D.N.: Towards a formal account of reasoning about evidence: argumentation schemes and generalisations. Artificial Intelligence and Law 12, 125–165 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Bondarenko, A., Kowalski, R.A., Toni, F.: An assumption-based fromework for nonmonotonic reasoning. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Logic Programming and Non-monotonic Reasoning, pp. 171–189 (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Brewka, G.: Preferred subtheories: An extended logical framework for default reasoning. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 1989), pp. 1043–1048 (1989)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Brewka, G.: Nonmonotonic Reasoning: Logical Foundations of Commonsense. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1991)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Caminada, M.: On the Issue of Reinstatement in Argumentation. In: Fisher, M., van der Hoek, W., Konev, B., Lisitsa, A. (eds.) JELIA 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4160, pp. 111–123. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  19. Caminada, M.: On the issue of contraposition of defeasible rules. In: Besnard, P., Doutre, S., Hunter, A. (eds.) Proceedings of Computational Models of Argument, COMMA 2008, pp. 109–115. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Caminada, M., Amgoud, L.: On the evaluation of argumentation formalisms. Artificial Intelligence 171, 286–310 (2007)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  21. Caminada, M., Wu, Y.: On the limitations of abstract argumentation. In: Proceedings of the 23rd Benelux Conference on Artificial Intelligence (BNAIC 2011), Gent, Belgium (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Cayrol, C.: On the relation between argumentation and non-monotonic coherence-based entailment. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 1995), pp. 1443–1448 (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Coste-Marquis, S., Devred, C., Marquis, P.: Constrained argumentation frameworks. In: Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference (KR 2006), pp. 112–122. AAAI Press (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Dung, P.M.: An argumentation semantics for logic programming with explicit negation. In: Proceedings of the Tenth Logic Programming Conference, pp. 616–630. MIT Press, Cambridge (1993)

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  26. Dung, P.M., Kowalski, R.A., Toni, F.: Assumption-based argumentation. In: Rahwan, I., Simari, G.R. (eds.) Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 199–218. Springer, Berlin (2009)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  27. Dung, P.M., Mancarella, P., Toni, F.: Computing ideal sceptical argumentation. Artificial Intelligence 171, 642–674 (2007)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  28. Dunne, P.E., McBurney, P., Parsons, S., Wooldridge, M.: Weighted argument systems: basic definitions, algorithms, and complexity results. Artificial Intelligence 175, 457–486 (2011)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  29. Garcia, A.J., Simari, G.R.: Defeasible logic programming: An argumentative approach. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 4, 95–138 (2004)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  30. Ginsberg, M.L.: AI and nonmonotonic reasoning. In: Gabbay, D., Hogger, C.J., Robinson, J.A. (eds.) Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming, pp. 1–33. Clarendon Press, Oxford (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Gordon, T.F.: The Pleadings Game: formalizing procedural justice. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pp. 10–19. ACM Press, New York (1993)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  32. Gorogiannis, N., Hunter, A.: Instantiating abstract argumentation with classical-logic arguments: postulates and properties. Artificial Intelligence 175, 1479–1497 (2011)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  33. Hage, J.C.: A theory of legal reasoning and a logic to match. Artificial Intelligence and Law 4, 199–273 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Hanks, S., McDermott, D.: Default reasoning, nonmonotonic logics and the frame problem. In: Proceedings of the 5th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 1986), pp. 328–333 (1986)

    Google Scholar 

  35. Horty, J.: Some direct theories of nonmonotonic inheritance. In: Gabbay, D., Hogger, C.J., Robinson, J.A. (eds.) Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming, pp. 111–187. Clarendon Press, Oxford (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  36. Horty, J., Thomason, R.H., Touretzky, D.S.: A skeptical theory of inheritance in nonmonotonic semantic networks. Artificial Intelligence 42, 311–348 (1990)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  37. Hunter, A.: Reasoning about the appropriateness of proponents for arguments. In: Proceedings of the 23rd National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2008), pp. 89–94 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  38. Israel, D.: What’s wrong with non-monotonic logic? In: Proceedings of the First National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 1980), pp. 99–101 (1980)

    Google Scholar 

  39. Jakobovits, H.: On the Theory of Argumentation Frameworks. Doctoral dissertation Free University Brussels (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  40. Jakobovits, H., Vermeir, D.: Robust semantics for argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation 9, 215–261 (1999)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  41. Jefferys, B., Kelley, L.A., Sergot, M.J., Fox, J., Sternberg, M.J.E.: Capturing expert knowledge with argumentation: a case study in bioinformatics. Bioinformatics 22, 924–933 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Kakas, A.C., Kowalski, R.A., Toni, F.: Abductive logic programming. Journal of Logic and Computation 2, 719–770 (1992)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  43. Lin, F., Shoham, Y.: Argument systems. A uniform basis for nonmonotonic reasoning. In: Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the First International Conference, pp. 245–255. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Mateo (1989)

    Google Scholar 

  44. Loui, R.P.: Defeat among arguments: a system of defeasible inference. Computational Intelligence 2, 100–106 (1987)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Modgil, S.: Reasoning about preferences in argumentation frameworks. Artificial Intelligence 173, 901–934 (2009)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  46. Modgil, S., Prakken, H.: Reasoning about preferences in structured extended argumentation frameworks. In: Baroni, P., Cerutti, F., Giacomin, M., Simari, G.R. (eds.) Proceedings of Computational Models of Argument, COMMA 2010, pp. 347–358. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  47. Modgil, S., Prakken, H.: Revisiting preferences and argumentation. In: Proceedings of the 22nd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2011), pp. 1021–1026 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  48. Nute, D.: Defeasible logic. In: Gabbay, D., Hogger, C.J., Robinson, J.A. (eds.) Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming, pp. 253–395. Clarendon Press, Oxford (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  49. Parsons, S., Wooldridge, M., Amgoud, L.: Properties and complexity of some formal inter-agent dialogues. Journal of Logic and Computation 13, 347–376 (2003)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  50. Pollock, J.L.: Defeasible reasoning. Cognitive Science 11, 481–518 (1987)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Pollock, J.L.: Justification and defeat. Artificial Intelligence 67, 377–408 (1994)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  52. Pollock, J.L.: Cognitive Carpentry. A Blueprint for How to Build a Person. MIT Press, Cambridge (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  53. Pollock, J.L.: A recursive semantics for defeasible reasoning. In: Rahwan, I., Simari, G.R. (eds.) Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 173–197. Springer, Berlin (2009)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  54. Poole, D.L.: A logical framework for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 36, 27–47 (1988)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  55. Prakken, H.: An argumentation framework in default logic. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 9, 91–132 (1993)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  56. Prakken, H.: Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument. Doctoral dissertation Free University Amsterdam (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  57. Prakken, H.: Formalising ordinary legal disputes: a case study. Artificial Intelligence and Law 16, 333–359 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Prakken, H.: An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. Argument and Computation 1, 93–124 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Prakken, H.: On the nature of argument schemes. In: Reed, C., Tindale, C. (eds.) Dialectics, Dialogue and Argumentation. An Examination of Douglas Walton’s Theories of Reasoning and Argument, pp. 167–185. College Publications, London (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  60. Prakken, H.: Reconstructing Popov v. Hayashi in a framework for argumentation with structured arguments and Dungean semantics. The Knowledge Engineering Review (2011) (to appear), http://www.cs.uu.nl/groups/IS/archive/henry/ker09.pdf

  61. Prakken, H., Renooij, S.: Reconstructing causal reasoning about evidence: a case study. In: JURIX 2001: The Fourteenth Annual Conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems, pp. 131–142. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2001)

    Google Scholar 

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

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  63. Prakken, H., Sergot, M.J.S.: Contrary-to-duty imperatives, defeasibility and violability. In: Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Deontic Logic in Computer Science, Oslo, Tano, pp. 296–318 (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  64. Prakken, H., Sergot, M.J.S.: Contrary-to-duty obligations. Studia Logica 57, 91–115 (1996)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  65. Prakken, H., Sergot, M.J.S.: Dyadic deontic logic and contrary-to-duty obligations. In: Nute, D. (ed.) Defeasible Deontic Logic. Synthese Library, vol. 263, pp. 223–262. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1997)

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  67. Rescher, N.: Plausible Reasoning. Van Gorcum, Assen (1976)

    Google Scholar 

  68. Rescher, N.: Dialectics: a Controversy-oriented Approach to the Theory of Knowledge. State University of New York Press, Albany (1977)

    Google Scholar 

  69. Sartor, G.: Legal Reasoning: a Cognitive Approach to the Law. Springer, Berlin (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  70. Simari, G.R., Loui, R.P.: A mathematical treatment of defeasible argumentation and its implementation. Artificial Intelligence 53, 125–157 (1992)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  71. Sombekke, J., van Engers, T.M., Prakken, H.: Argumentation structures in legal dossiers. In: Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pp. 277–281. ACM Press, New York (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  72. Toni, F., Sergot, M.J.: Argumentation and Answer Set Programming. In: Balduccini, M., Son, T.C. (eds.) Logic Programming, Knowledge Representation, and Nonmonotonic Reasoning. LNCS, vol. 6565, pp. 164–180. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  73. Verheij, B.: An integrated view on rules and principles. In: van Kralingen, R.W., et al. (eds.) Legal Knowledge Based Systems. Foundations of Legal Knowledge Systems Proceedings of (JURIX 1996), pp. 25–38. Tilburg University Press, Tilburg (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  74. Verheij, B.: Two approaches to dialectical argumentation: admissible sets and argumentation stages. In: Proceedings of the Eighth Dutch Conference on Artificial Intelligence (NAIC 1996), Utrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 357–368 (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  75. Verheij, B.: Dialectical argumentation with argumentation schemes: an approach to legal logic. Artificial Intelligence and Law 11, 167–195 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Vreeswijk, G.A.W.: Studies in Defeasible Argumentation. Doctoral dissertation Free University Amsterdam (1993)

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

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

    Henry Prakken

  2. Faculty of Law, University of Groningen, The Netherlands

    Henry Prakken

Authors
  1. Henry Prakken
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Software and Knowledge Engineering Laboratory, Institute of Informatics and Telecommunications, National Centre for Scientific Research ’Demokritos’, 15310, Athens, Greece

    Alexander Artikis

  2. Department of Computing, Imperial College London, 180 Queen’s Gate, SW7 2AZ, London, UK

    Robert Craven

  3. Department of Computer Engineering, Middle East Technical University, Dumlupınar Bulvarı No. 1, 06800, Çankaya, Ankara, Turkey

    Nihan Kesim Çiçekli

  4. Axiomatics AB, Box 2157, 103 14, Stockholm, Sweden

    Babak Sadighi

  5. Royal Holloway, University of London, UK

    Kostas Stathis

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Prakken, H. (2012). Some Reflections on Two Current Trends in Formal Argumentation. In: Artikis, A., Craven, R., Kesim Çiçekli, N., Sadighi, B., Stathis, K. (eds) Logic Programs, Norms and Action. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 7360. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-29414-3_14

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-29414-3_14

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-29413-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-29414-3

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation