A Formal Analysis of Logic-Based Argumentation Systems

  title={A Formal Analysis of Logic-Based Argumentation Systems},
  author={Leila Amgoud and Philippe Besnard},
Dung's abstract argumentation model consists of a set of arguments and a binary relation encoding attacks among arguments. Different acceptability semantics have been defined for evaluating the arguments. What is worth noticing is that the model completely abstracts from the applications to which it can be applied. Thus, it is not clear what are the results that can be returned in a given application by each semantics. This paper answers this question. For that purpose, we start by plunging the… 
Logical limits of abstract argumentation frameworks
The study reveals that stable, semi-stable and preferred semantics either lead to counter-intuitive results or provide no added value w.r.t. a given semantics, which is problematic when applied over deductive logical formalisms.
Postulates for logic-based argumentation systems
Maxi-Consistent Operators in Argumentation
This paper studies an instantiation of Dung-style argumentation system with classical propositional logic to better understand the role of argumentation and, more particularly, the expressivity of logic-based instantiations of D Bung- style argumentation frameworks.
Between Argument and Conclusion - Argument-based Approaches to Discussion, Inference and Uncertainty
  • Y. Wu
  • Computer Science
  • 2012
This thesis provides a more refined notion of the overall status of arguments based on the notion of a complete labelling and defines a set of conditions under which the ASPIC Lite system satisfies all the mentioned rationality postulates under complete semantics.
Identifying the Class of Maxi-Consistent Operators in Argumentation
This paper identifies and studies the large class of logic-based instantiations of Dung's theory which correspond to the maxi-consistent operator, i.e. to the function which returns maximal consistent subsets of an inconsistent knowledge base.
A formal characterization of the outcomes of rule-based argumentation systems
This paper presents the first study of the outcomes of such systems under various acceptability semantics, namely naive, stable, semi-stable, preferred, grounded and ideal, on the family of inconsistency-based attack relations.
A new approach for preference-based argumentation frameworks
This paper proposes an approach that guarantees conflict-free extensions of argumentation framework and presents three dominance relations that generalize respectively stable, preferred and grounded semantics with preferences and retrieves the preferred sub-theories which were proposed in the context of handling inconsistency in weighted knowledge bases.
Stable Semantics in Logic-Based Argumentation
This paper investigates the outputs of abstract logic-based argumentation systems under stable semantics. We delimit the number of stable extensions a system may have. We show that in the best case,
Formalisation and logical properties of the maximal ideal recursive semantics for weighted defeasible logic programming
An argumentation framework for RP-DeLP that is able to compute not only the output of warranted and blocked conclusions, but also explain the reasons behind the status of each conclusion is implemented.
A Sequent-Based Representation of Logical Argumentation
It is shown that arguments may be represented by Gentzen-type sequents and that attacks between arguments may been represented by sequent elimination rules, implying that argumentation theory may benefit from incorporating techniques of proof theory and that different non-classical formalisms may be used for backing up intended argumentation semantics.


Bridging the Gap between Abstract Argumentation Systems and Logic
This paper argues that an attack relation should be at least grounded on the minimal conflicts contained in the knowledge base, and shows how to build arguments from a knowledge base using the consequence operator of the logic.
On the evaluation of argumentation formalisms
SCC-recursiveness: a general schema for argumentation semantics
Elements of Argumentation
The need to take intrinsic and extrinsic factors into account is considered, and ways that this can be done in logic in order to refine existing logic-based approaches to argumentation are considered.
On the Relation between Argumentation and Non-monotonic Coherence-Based Entailment
A formal correspondence between the so-called argumentation paradigm and recent work on nonmonotonic entailment is established and several directions for further research concerning the integration of preference relations into argumentation systems are proposed.
Computing ideal sceptical argumentation
Inferring from Inconsistency in Preference-Based Argumentation Frameworks
This paper investigates preference-based acceptability, the basic idea is to accept undefeated arguments and also arguments that are preferred to their defeaters, and defines argumentation frameworks based on that preference- based acceptability.