Bas van Gijzel
Henrik Nilsson
ABSTRACT
Argumentation theory is concerned with studying the nature of arguments in the most general sense, including for example scientific, legal, or even completely informal arguments. There are two main approaches. Abstract argumentation is completely generic, making no specific assumptions about the structure of arguments. Structured argumentation, on the other hand, does adopt a predetermined structure pertaining to the domain of discourse. Structured argumentation models have seen a recent surge, with new developments in both general frameworks and more domain-specific approaches. Yet, in contrast to the abstract approach, there is a distinct lack of implementations of structured argumentation models. We believe a key reason for this is the lack of suitable implementation frameworks. Building on previous work, this paper attempts to tackle this problem by applying functional programming techniques. We show how to implement one structured argumentation framework (Carneades) and one abstract framework (Dung) in this way, and then proceed to show how to implement a translation from the former into the latter, one of the first such implementations. Ultimately, we hope our work will evolve into a domain-specific language for implementation of argumentation frameworks. But even at this stage, the paper demonstrates the benefits of functional programming as a tool for argumentation theory.
- P. Baroni and M. Giacomin. Semantics of abstract argument systems. In G. Simari and I. Rahwan, editors, Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, pages 25--44. Springer US, 2009. ISBN 978-0-387-98197-0.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- F. Bex, S. Modgil, H. Prakken, and C. Reed. On logical specifications of the Argument Interchange Format. Journal of Logic and Computation, 2012.Google Scholar
- A. Bondarenko, P. M. Dung, R. A. Kowalski, and F. Toni. An abstract, argumentation-theoretic framework for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 93:63--101, 1997. Google ScholarDigital Library
- G. Brewka and T. F. Gordon. Carneades and abstract dialectical frameworks: A reconstruction. In M. Giacomin and G. R. Simari, editors, Computational Models of Argument. Proceedings of COMMA 2010, pages 3--12, Amsterdam etc, 2010. IOS Press 2010. Google ScholarDigital Library
- G. Brewka and S. Woltran. Abstract dialectical frameworks. In Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference on the Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pages 102--111. AAAI Press, 2010.Google Scholar
- G. Brewka, P. E. Dunne, and S. Woltran. Relating the semantics of abstract dialectical frameworks and standard AFs. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-11), pages 780--785, 2011. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. Caminada. An algorithm for computing semi-stable semantics. In Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty, pages 222--234. Springer, 2007. Google ScholarDigital Library
- G. Charwat, W. Dvorák, S. A. Gaggl, J. P. Wallner, and S. Woltran. Implementing abstract argumentation - a survey. Technical Report DBAI-TR-2013-82, Vienna University of Technology, 2013.Google Scholar
- C. Chesñevar, J. McGinnis, S. Modgil, I. Rahwan, C. Reed, G. Simari, M. South, G. Vreeswijk, and S. Willmott. Towards an argument interchange format. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 21(4):293--316, 2006. Google ScholarDigital Library
- H. B. Curry. Functionality in combinatory logic. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 20(11): 584, 1934.Google ScholarCross Ref
- H. B. Curry, R. Feys, W. Craig, J. R. Hindley, and J. P. Seldin. Combinatory logic, volume 2. North-Holland Amsterdam, 1972.Google Scholar
- P. M. Dung. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence, 77(2):321--357, 1995. ISSN 0004-3702. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. Erwig. Inductive graphs and functional graph algorithms. Journal Functional Programming, 11(5):467--492, Sept. 2001. ISSN 0956-7968. Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. M. Farley and K. Freeman. Burden of proof in legal argumentation. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL-05), pages 156--164, New York, NY, USA, 1995. ACM. ISBN 0-89791-758-8. Google ScholarDigital Library
- K. Freeman and A. M. Farley. A model of argumentation and its application to legal reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 4:163--197, 1996. ISSN 0924-8463.Google ScholarDigital Library
- B. van Gijzel and H. Nilsson. Haskell gets argumentative. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Trends in Functional Programming (TFP 2012), LNCS 7829, pages 215--230, St Andrews, UK, 2013. LNCS.Google ScholarDigital Library
- B. van Gijzel and H. Prakken. Relating Carneades with abstract argumentation. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-11), pages 1113--1119, 2011. Google ScholarDigital Library
- B. van Gijzel and H. Prakken. Relating Carneades with abstract argumentation via the ASPIC+ framework for structured argumentation. Argument & Computation, 3(1):21--47, 2012.Google ScholarCross Ref
- T. F. Gordon and D. Walton. Proof burdens and standards. In G. Simari and I. Rahwan, editors, Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, pages 239--258. Springer US, 2009. ISBN 978-0-387-98197-0.Google ScholarCross Ref
- T. F. Gordon, H. Prakken, and D. Walton. The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof. Artificial Intelligence, 171(10--15):875--896, 2007. ISSN 0004-3702. Google ScholarDigital Library
- W. A. Howard. The formulae-as-types notion of construction. To HB Curry: essays on combinatory logic, lambda calculus and formalism, 44:479--490, 1980.Google Scholar
- P. Hudak. Building domain-specific embedded languages. ACM Comput. Surv., 28(4es):196, 1996. Google ScholarDigital Library
- P. Hudak. Modular domain specific languages and tools. In Software Reuse, 1998. Proceedings. Fifth International Conference on, pages 134--142. IEEE, 1998. Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. Modgil and M. Caminada. Proof theories and algorithms for abstract argumentation frameworks. In G. Simari and I. Rahwan, editors, Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, pages 105--129. Springer US, 2009. ISBN 978-0-387-98196-3.Google ScholarCross Ref
- S. Modgil and H. Prakken. A general account of argumentation with preferences. Artificial Intelligence, 2012. Google ScholarDigital Library
- U. Norell. Dependently typed programming in Agda. In Proceedings of the 4th international workshop on Types in language design and implementation, TLDI '09, pages 1--2, New York, NY, USA, 2009. ACM. ISBN 978-1-60558-420-1. Google ScholarDigital Library
- H. Prakken. An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. Argument & Computation, 1:93--124, 2010.Google ScholarCross Ref
- I. Rahwan and C. Reed. The argument interchange format. In G. Simari and I. Rahwan, editors, Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, pages 383--402. Springer US, 2009. ISBN 978-0-387-98197-0.Google ScholarCross Ref
- G. R. Simari. A brief overview of research in argumentation systems. In Proceedings of the 5th international conference on Scalable uncertainty management, SUM'11, pages 81--95, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2011. Springer-Verlag. ISBN 978-3-642-23962-5. Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- Towards a framework for the implementation and verification of translations between argumentation models
Recommendations
Computing Arguments and Attacks in Assumption-Based Argumentation
CaSAPI (Credulous and Skeptical Argumentation: Prolog Implementation) 3.0 determines the acceptability of claims, using the general-purpose framework of assumption-based argumentation, under the semantics of admissible extensions. This framework reduces ...
A structured argumentation system with backing and undercutting
This work introduces Extended Defeasible Logic Programming (E-DeLP), a structured argumentation system enabling the expression of reasons for and against using defeasible rules. E-DeLPextends the formalism of Defeasible Logic Programming (DeLP) by ...
Inferring from Inconsistency in Preference-Based Argumentation Frameworks
Argumentation is a promising approach to handle inconsistent knowledge bases, based on the justification of plausible conclusions by arguments. Because of inconsistency, however, arguments may be defeated by counterarguments (or defeaters). The problem ...
Comments