Argumentation and Non-Monotonic Reasoning

of 145

Please download to get full document.

View again

All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
PDF
145 pages
0 downs
93 views
Share
Description
Research on argumentation and non-monotonic reasoning began in full force in the early eighties. The first attempts showed how argumentation results in a very natural way of conceptualizing commonsense reasoning, appropriately reflecting its
Tags
Transcript
  Guillermo Ricardo Simari Paolo Torroni (eds.) Argumentation andNon-Monotonic Reasoning An LPNMR Workshop Tempe, Arizona, US, May 14, 2007Proceedings ArgNMR Home Page : http://lia.deis.unibo.it/confs/argnmr/  Preface Research on argumentation and non-monotonic reasoning began in full force inthe early eighties. The first attempts showed how argumentation results in a verynatural way of conceptualizing commonsense reasoning, appropriately reflectingits defeasible nature. Further work in the knowledge representation and rea-soning community has shown that argumentation provides a useful perspectivefor relating different non-monotonic formalisms. More recently, argumentationhas been revealed as a powerful conceptual tool for exploring the theoreticalfoundations of reasoning and interaction in autonomous agents and multiagentsystems.This volume contains the papers that will be presented at the First Interna-tional Workshop on Argumentation and Non-Monotonic Reasoning (ArgNMR2007) on May 14, 2007 in Tempe, Arizona, US. Each submission was reviewedby at least 3 programme committee members.ArgNMR will consist of 9 presentations and 2 discussion sessions. Our inten-tion is to propose this event as an opportunity for exchanging ideas on the funda-mental theoretical basis and the design and implementation of argument-basedsystems including semantics, proof theory, applications and the comparison of those systems with other types of non-monotonic reasoning.We wish to thank the authors of this volume, the ArgNMR ProgrammeCommittee, the delegates who will attend, Chitta Baral for providing logisticsupport, Gerd Brewka and John Schlipf for inviting us to propose such an event inco-location with LPNMR, and Andrei Voronkov for his contribution to ArgNMRthrough EasyChair.April 2007 Guillermo Ricardo SimariPaolo Torroni  Workshop Organization Programme Chairs Guillermo Ricardo Simari, U Nacional del Sur, Bah´ıa Blanca, Argentina  Paolo Torroni, U Bologna, Italy  Programme Committee Leila Amgoud, IRIT-CNRS Toulouse, France  Grigoris Antoniou, FORTH-ICS, Greece  Pietro Baroni, U Brescia, Italy  Trevor J.M. Bench-Capon, U Liverpool, United Kingdom  Carlos Iv´an Ches˜nevar, U Nacional del Sur, Bah´ıa Blanca, Argentina  J¨urgen Dix, TU Clausthal, Germany  Phan Minh Dung, Asian Institute of Technology, Thailand  Lluis Godo, IIIA-CSIC, Spain  Anthony Hunter, U College London, United Kingdom  Antonis C. Kakas, U Cyprus  Gabriele Kern-Isberner, U Dortmund, Germany  Nicolas Maudet, U Paris-Dauphine, France  Peter J. McBurney, U Liverpool, United Kingdom  Donald Nute, U Georgia, Athens, GE, United States  Henry Prakken, U Utrecht, The Netherlands & U Groningen, The Netherlands  Iyad Rahwan, British U Dubai, UAE & U Edinburgh, United Kingdom  Tran Cao Son, New Mexico State U, NM, United States  Francesca Toni, Imperial College London, United Kingdom  Local Organization Chitta Baral, Arizona State University, Arizona, United States   Table of Contents Three senses of “Argument” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Adam Wyner, Trevor J.M. Bench-Capon, Katie Atkinson  An Abstract Presentation of Dialectical Explanations in DefeasibleArgumentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Alejandro Garc´ıa, Carlos Iv´ an Ches˜ nevar, Nicol´ as Daniel Rotstein, Guillermo R. Simari  Characterizing Defeat Graphs where Argumentation Semantics Agree . . . . 33 Pietro Baroni, Massimiliano Giacomin  A Sound and Complete Dialectical Proof Procedure for ScepticalPreferred Argumentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Phan Minh Dung, Phan Minh Thang  Argumentation-based Proof for an Argument in a Paraconsistent Setting . 64 Iara Almeida, Jos´e J´ ulio Alferes  CaSAPI: A System for Credulous and Sceptical Argumentation . . . . . . . . . 80 Dorian Gaertner, Francesca Toni Reductio ad Absurdum  Argumentation in Normal Logic Programs . . . . . . . 96 Lu´ıs Moniz Pereira, Alexandre Miguel Pinto Inferring Preferred Extensions by Minimal Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 Juan Carlos Nieves, Mauricio Osorio Galindo, Ulises Cort´es  Formal Properties of the SCIFF-AF Multiagent Argumentation Framework 125 Paolo Torroni  Author Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141  Three Senses of “Argument” Adam Wyner 1 , Trevor Bench-Capon 1 , and Katie Atkinson 1   1 Department of Computer Science, Ashton BuildingUniversity of LiverpoolLiverpool, United Kingdom, L693BX{azwyner, tbc, katie }@csc.liv.ac.uk    Abstract. In AI approaches to argumentation, different senses of argument areoften conflated. We propose a three-level distinction between arguments, cases,and debates. This allows for modularising issues within levels and identifyingsystematic relations between levels. Arguments, comprised of rules, facts, anda claim, are the basic units; they instantiate argument schemes; they have nosub-arguments. Cases are sets of arguments supporting a claim. Debates are aset of arguments in an attack relation; they include cases for and against aparticular claim. Critical questions, which depend on the argument schemes,are used to determine the attack relation between arguments. In a debate,rankings on arguments or argument relations are given as components based onfeatures of argument schemes. Our analysis clarifies the role and contributionof distinct approaches in the construction of rational debate. It identifies thesource of properties used for evaluating the status of arguments inArgumentation Frameworks. Keywords. Argumentation, argument, case, debate. 1 Introduction In AI we find a number of approaches to argumentation and argument. Someapproaches represent arguments as trees or graphs (e.g. Reed and Rowe 2005), someare highly concerned with the structure of arguments (e.g. Caminada and Amgoud2005) and the way arguments support one another (e.g. Cayrol and Lagasquie-Schiex2005). From informal logic we have the notion of argument schemes (e.g. Walton1996), while much of the more formal work has taken place in the context of abstractargumentation frameworks (e.g. Dung 1995). With this variety of approaches it isimportant to determine the relations between them, and in particular to avoidconflation of distinct ideas. To this end we will, in this paper, explore three differentsenses of the word “argument”, all of which are represented in the previous work mentioned above, in order to give a clear characterisation of what may be intended byargument, and to identify the appropriate role of various senses in argumentation as awhole.
Related Search
Advertisements
Advertisements
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks