Martin Caminada

Learn More
Argumentation theory has become an important topic in the field of AI. The ba-<lb>sic idea is to construct arguments in favor and against a statement, to select the<lb>“acceptable” ones and, finally, to determine whether the original statement can be<lb>accepted or not. Several argumentation systems have been proposed in the literature. Some of<lb>them, the(More)
This paper presents an overview on the state of the art of semantics for abstract argumentation, covering both some of the most influential literature proposals and some general issues concerning semantics definition and evaluation. As to the former point the paper reviews Dung’s original notions of complete, grounded, preferred, and stable semantics, as(More)
In the current paper, we re-examine how abstract argumentation can be formulated in terms of labellings, and how the resulting theory can be applied in the field of modal logic. In particular, we are able to express the (complete) extensions of an argumentation framework as models of a set of modal logic formulas that represents the argumentation framework.(More)
In this paper, we examine an argument-based semantics called semi-stable semantics. Semi-stable semantics is quite close to traditional stable semantics in the sense that every stable extension is also a semi-stable extension. One of the advantages of semi-stable semantics is that for finite argumentation frameworks there always exists at least one(More)
Previous chapters have focussed on abstract argumentation frameworks and properties of sets of arguments defined under various extension-based semantics. The main focus of this chapter is on more procedural, proof-theoretic and algorithmic aspects of argumentation. In particular, Chapter 2 describes properties of extensions of a Dung argumentation framework(More)
Dung’s theory of abstract argumentation frameworks [8] led to the formalization of various argument-based semantics, which are actually particular forms of dealing with the issue of reinstatement. In this paper, we re-examine the issue of semantics from the perspective of postulates. In particular, we ask ourselves the question of which (minimal)(More)
Judgment aggregation is a field in which individuals are required to vote for or against a certain decision (the conclusion) while providing reasons for their choice. The reasons and the conclusion are logically connected propositions. The problem is how a collective judgment on logically interconnected propositions can be defined from individual judgments(More)
In the current paper, we re-examine the connection between formal argumentation and logic programming from the perspective of semantics. We observe that one particular translation from logic programs to instantiated argumentation (the one described by Wu, Caminada and Gabbay) is able to serve as a basis for describing various equivalences between logic(More)
Over the last decennia, many systems for formal argumentation have been defined. The problem, however, is that these systems do not always satisfy reasonable properties. In this paper, we focus on the particular property that a conflict between two arguments cannot keep other unrelated arguments from becoming justified. Although this property appears(More)