article

On the evaluation of argumentation formalisms

Authors:

Martin Caminada,

Leila AmgoudAuthors Info & Claims

Artificial Intelligence, Volume 171, Issue 5-6

Pages 286 - 310

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2007.02.003

Published: 01 April 2007 Publication History

Abstract

Argumentation theory has become an important topic in the field of AI. The basic idea is to construct arguments in favor and against a statement, to select the ''acceptable'' ones and, finally, to determine whether the original statement can be accepted or not. Several argumentation systems have been proposed in the literature. Some of them, the so-called rule-based systems, use a particular logical language with strict and defeasible rules. While these systems are useful in different domains (e.g. legal reasoning), they unfortunately lead to very unintuitive results, as is discussed in this paper. In order to avoid such anomalies, in this paper we are interested in defining principles, called rationality postulates, that can be used to judge the quality of a rule-based argumentation system. In particular, we define two important rationality postulates that should be satisfied: the consistency and the closure of the results returned by that system. We then provide a relatively easy way in which these rationality postulates can be warranted for a particular rule-based argumentation system developed within a European project on argumentation.

References

[1]

Alferes, J., Dung, P. and Pereira, L., Scenario semantics of extended logic programs. In: Nerode, A., Pereira, L. (Eds.), Proc. 2nd International Workshop on Logic Programming and Non-monotonic Reasoning, MIT Press. pp. 334-348.

Digital Library

[2]

L. Amgoud, A general argumentation framework for inference decision making, in: Proceedings of the 21st Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, UAI'05, 2005, pp. 26--33

[3]

L. Amgoud, S. Belabes, H. Prade, Towards a formal framework for the search of a consensus between autonomous agents, in: Proceedings of the 4th International joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, AAMAS'2005, 2005, pp. 537--543

Digital Library

[4]

L. Amgoud, M. Caminada, C. Cayrol, M. Lagasquie, H. Prakken, Towards a consensual formal model: inference part, Technical report, In Deliverable D2.2: Draft Formal Semantics for Inference and Decision-Making. ASPIC project, 2004. http://www.argumentation.org

[5]

Amgoud, L. and Cayrol, C., Inferring from inconsistency in preference-based argumentation frameworks. International Journal of Automated Reasoning. v29 i2. 125-169.

Digital Library

[6]

Amgoud, L. and Cayrol, C., A reasoning model based on the production of acceptable arguments. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence. v34. 197-216.

Digital Library

[7]

L. Amgoud, S. Kaci, An argumentation framework for merging conflicting knowledge bases: The prioritized case, in: 8th European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty, ECSQARU'2005, 2005, pp. 527--538

Digital Library

[8]

L. Amgoud, N. Maudet, S. Parsons, Arguments, dialogue, and negotiation, in: Proceedings of the 14th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2000, pp. 338--342

[9]

L. Amgoud, S. Parsons, An argumentation framework for merging conflicting knowledge bases, in: Proceedings of International Conference on Logics in Artificial Intelligence, 2002, pp. 27--37

Digital Library

[10]

L. Amgoud, H. Prade, Reaching agreement through argumentation: A possibilistic approach, in: 9th International Conference on the Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, KR'2004, 2004, pp. 175--182

[11]

L. Amgoud, H. Prade, Using arguments for making decisions: A possibilistic logic approach, in: Proceedings of the 20th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, UAI'04, 2004, pp. 10--17

Digital Library

[12]

L. Amgoud, H. Prade, Explaining qualitative decision under uncertainty by argumentation, in: Proceedings of the 21st National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI'06, 2006, pp. 219--224

Digital Library

[13]

Baroni, P. and Giacomin, M., Scc-recursiveness: a general schema for argumentation semantics. Artificial Intelligence. v168 i1--2. 165-210.

[14]

Bench-Capon, T.J.M., Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation. v13 i3. 429-448.

[15]

Benferhat, S., Dubois, D. and Prade, H., Argumentative inference in uncertain and inconsistent knowledge bases. In: Heckerman, D., Mamdani, A. (Eds.), Proc. of the 9th UAI, Morgan-Kaufmann, Washington, DC. pp. 411-419.

[16]

Besnard, P. and Hunter, A., A logic-based theory of deductive arguments. Artificial Intelligence. v128 i1--2. 203-235.

Digital Library

[17]

P. Besnard, A. Hunter, Practical first-order argumentation, in: Proceedings of the 20th American National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI'05), 2005, pp. 590--595

Digital Library

[18]

E. Black, A. Hunter, A generative inquiry dialogue system, in: Proceedings of the 6th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS'07), 2007

Digital Library

[19]

Bondarenko, A., Dung, P., Kowalski, R. and Toni, F., An abstract, argumentation-theoretic approach to default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence. v93. 63-101.

Digital Library

[20]

B. Bonet, H. Geffner, Arguing for decisions: A qualitative model of decision making, in: F.J.E.E. Horwitz (Ed.), Proc. 12th Conf. on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI'96), Portland, Oregon, 1996, pp. 98--105

[21]

R. Brena, C. Chesòevar, J. Aguirre, Argumentation-supported information distribution in a multiagent system for knowledge management, in: 2nd International Workshop on Argumentation in Multiagent Systems (ArgMAS 2005)

Digital Library

[22]

M. Caminada, Contamination in formal argumentation systems, in: Proceedings of the 17th Belgium--Netherlands Conference on Artificial Intelligence (BNAIC), 2005, pp. 59--65

[23]

Caminada, M., On the issue of reinstatement in argumentation. In: Fischer, M., van der Hoek, W., Konev, B., Lisitsa, A. (Eds.), Lecture Notes in AI, vol. 4160. Springer, Berlin. pp. 111-123.

[24]

Caminada, M., Semi-stable semantics. In: Dunne, P., Bench-Capon, T. (Eds.), Computational Models of Argument; Proceedings of COMMA 2006, IOS Press. pp. 121-130.

Digital Library

[25]

Cayrol, C. and Lagasquie-Schiex, M.-C., Graduality in argumentation. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research. v23. 245-297.

[26]

Chesòevar, C.I., Maguitman, A. and Loui, R.P., Logical models of arguments. ACM Computing Surveys. v32 i4. 337-383.

Digital Library

[27]

Clark, K., Negation as failure. In: Gallaire, H., Minker, J. (Eds.), Logic and Data Bases, Plenum Press, New York. pp. 293-322.

[28]

Dung, P.M., On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence. v77. 321-357.

Digital Library

[29]

Elvang-Gøransson, M., Fox, J. and Krause, P., Dialectic reasoning with inconsistent information. In: Heckerman, D., Mamdani, A. (Eds.), Proc. of the 9th UAI, Morgan-Kaufmann, Washington, DC. pp. 114-121.

[30]

Gordon, T.F. and Karacapilidis, N., The zeno argumentation framework. In: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, ACM Press, New York. pp. 10-18.

Digital Library

[31]

J. Fox, P. McBurney, Decision making by intelligent agents: logical argument, probabilistic inference and the maintenance of beliefs and acts, in: Proc. 9th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning (NMR'2002), Toulouse, France, April 2002

[32]

J. Fox, S. Parsons, On using arguments for reasoning about actions and values, in: Proceedings of the AAAI Spring Symposium on Qualitative Preferences in Deliberation and Practical Reasoning, Stanford, 1997

[33]

García, A. and Simari, G., Defeasible logic programming: an argumentative approach. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming. v4 i1. 95-138.

Digital Library

[34]

Governatori, G., Maher, M., Antoniou, G. and Billington, D., Argumentation semantics for defeasible logic. Journal of Logic and Computation. v14 i5. 675-702.

Digital Library

[35]

D. Hitchcock, P. McBurney, S. Parsons, A framework for deliberation dialogues, in: H.V. Hansen, C.W. Tindale, J.A. Blair, R.H. Johnson (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth Biennial Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA 2001), Windsor, Ontario, Canada, 2001

[36]

A. Kakas, P. Moraitis, Adaptive agent negotiation via argumentation, in: Proceedings of the 5th International joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, AAMAS'2006, 2006, pp. 384--391

Digital Library

[37]

Loui, R.P., Process and policy: resource-bounded non-demonstrative reasoning. Computational Intelligence. v14. 1-38.

[38]

McBurney, P., Parsons, S. and Wooldridge, M., Desiderata for agent argumentation protocols. In: Castelfranchi, C., Johnson, W.L. (Eds.), Proceedings of the First International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS 2002), ACM Press, New York. pp. 402-409.

Digital Library

[39]

Pollock, J.L., How to reason defeasibly. Artificial Intelligence. v57. 1-42.

Digital Library

[40]

Pollock, J.L., Cognitive Carpentry. A Blueprint for How to Build a Person. 1995. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Digital Library

[41]

Prakken, H., Relating protocols for dynamic dispute with logics for defeasible argumentation. Synthese. v127. 187-219.

[42]

Prakken, H. and Sartor, G., Argument-based extended logic programming with defeasible priorities. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics. v7. 25-75.

[43]

Prakken, H. and Vreeswijk, G.A.W., Logics for defeasible argumentation. In: Gabbay, D., Günthner, F. (Eds.), Handbook of Philosophical Logic, vol. 4, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Boston, London. pp. 219-318.

[44]

Simari, G. and Loui, R., A mathematical treatment of defeasible reasoning and its implementation. Artificial Intelligence. v53. 125-157.

Digital Library

[45]

Vreeswijk, G.A.W., Abstract argumentation systems. Artificial Intelligence. v90. 225-279.

Digital Library

[46]

Vreeswijk, G.A.W. and Prakken, H., Credulous and skeptical argument games for preferred semantics. In: Lecture Notes in AI, vol. 1919. Springer, Berlin. pp. 239-253.

Digital Library

Cited By

Soto YDeagustini CMartinez MSimari GHong JPark J(2024)A Mathematical Conceptualization of Bundle Sets in Defeasible Logic ProgrammingProceedings of the 39th ACM/SIGAPP Symposium on Applied Computing10.1145/3605098.3636042(779-786)Online publication date: 8-Apr-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3605098.3636042
Arieli OHeyninck JHong JPark J(2024)Collective Attacks in Assumption-Based ArgumentationProceedings of the 39th ACM/SIGAPP Symposium on Applied Computing10.1145/3605098.3635916(746-753)Online publication date: 8-Apr-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3605098.3635916
Guerrero ENieves J(2024)Semantic-Based Arguments Using Logic Programming Rewriting SystemsLogic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning10.1007/978-3-031-74209-5_21(276-289)Online publication date: 11-Oct-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-031-74209-5_21
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

On the evaluation of argumentation formalisms
1. Computing methodologies
  1. Artificial intelligence
    1. Knowledge representation and reasoning
      1. Logic programming and answer set programming
      2. Nonmonotonic, default reasoning and belief revision
  2. Machine learning
    1. Machine learning approaches
      1. Rule learning
2. Theory of computation
  1. Logic
    1. Constraint and logic programming

Recommendations

Reasoning by cases in structured argumentation.
SAC '17: Proceedings of the Symposium on Applied Computing

We extend the ASPIC⁺ framework for structured argumentation so as to allow applications of the reasoning by cases inference scheme for defeasible arguments. Given an argument with conclusion 'A or B', an argument based on A with conclusion C, and an ...
On the Relationship with Toulmin Method to Logic-Based Argumentation
Agents and Artificial Intelligence
Abstract
Toulmin presents a model of argumentation, in which claims can be justified in response to challenges. The model replaces the traditional concepts of ‘claim’ and ‘premise’ with new concepts of ‘claim’, ‘data’, ‘warrant’, ‘qualifier’, ‘rebuttal’, ...
A Fully Rational Argumentation System for Preordered Defeasible Rules
AAMAS '19: Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems

Structured argumentation is a family of formal approaches for the handling of defeasible, potentially inconsistent information. Many models for structured argumentation distinguish between strict and defeasible inference rules. Defeasible rules often ...

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image Artificial Intelligence

Artificial Intelligence Volume 171, Issue 5-6

April, 2007

109 pages

ISSN:0004-3702

Issue’s Table of Contents

Copyright © Elsevier B.V. © 2007.

Publisher

Elsevier Science Publishers Ltd.

United Kingdom

Publication History

Published: 01 April 2007

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Article

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

131
Total Citations
View Citations
1
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)0
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

Reflects downloads up to 24 Nov 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Soto YDeagustini CMartinez MSimari GHong JPark J(2024)A Mathematical Conceptualization of Bundle Sets in Defeasible Logic ProgrammingProceedings of the 39th ACM/SIGAPP Symposium on Applied Computing10.1145/3605098.3636042(779-786)Online publication date: 8-Apr-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3605098.3636042
Arieli OHeyninck JHong JPark J(2024)Collective Attacks in Assumption-Based ArgumentationProceedings of the 39th ACM/SIGAPP Symposium on Applied Computing10.1145/3605098.3635916(746-753)Online publication date: 8-Apr-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3605098.3635916
Guerrero ENieves J(2024)Semantic-Based Arguments Using Logic Programming Rewriting SystemsLogic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning10.1007/978-3-031-74209-5_21(276-289)Online publication date: 11-Oct-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-031-74209-5_21
Skiba KThimm MWallner J(2024)Ranking Transition-Based Medical Recommendations Using Assumption-Based ArgumentationRobust Argumentation Machines10.1007/978-3-031-63536-6_12(202-220)Online publication date: 5-Jun-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-031-63536-6_12
Arieli OHeyninck JMarquis PSon TKern-Isberner G(2023)Simple contrapositive assumption-based argumentation with partially-ordered preferencesProceedings of the 20th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning10.24963/kr.2023/6(55-64)Online publication date: 2-Sep-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.24963/kr.2023/6
Odekerken DLehtonen TBorg AWallner JJärvisalo MMarquis PSon TKern-Isberner G(2023)Argumentative reasoning in ASPIC+ under incomplete informationProceedings of the 20th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning10.24963/kr.2023/52(531-541)Online publication date: 2-Sep-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.24963/kr.2023/52
Dvořák WRapberger AWoltran S(2023)A claim-centric perspective on abstract argumentation semanticsArtificial Intelligence10.1016/j.artint.2023.104011324:COnline publication date: 1-Nov-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.artint.2023.104011
Popescu AWallner J(2023)Reasoning in Assumption-Based Argumentation Using Tree-DecompositionsLogics in Artificial Intelligence10.1007/978-3-031-43619-2_14(192-208)Online publication date: 20-Sep-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-031-43619-2_14
Ho LArch-int SAcar ESchlobach SArch-int N(2022)An argumentative approach for handling inconsistency in prioritized Datalog ± ontologiesAI Communications10.3233/AIC-22008735:3(243-267)Online publication date: 1-Jan-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.3233/AIC-220087
Baroni PFermé EGiacomin MSimari G(2022)Belief Revision and Computational Argumentation: A Critical ComparisonJournal of Logic, Language and Information10.1007/s10849-022-09369-831:4(555-589)Online publication date: 1-Dec-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10849-022-09369-8
Show More Cited By

View Options

View options

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Issue’s Table of Contents