Assessing the epistemological relevance of Dung-style argumentation theories

  title={Assessing the epistemological relevance of Dung-style argumentation theories},
  author={Gregor Betz},
  journal={Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence},
  • Gregor Betz
  • Published 2015
  • Computer Science
  • Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence
In a seminal paper Phan Minh Dung (Artif. Intell. 77(2), 321–357, 1995) developed the theory of abstract argumentation frameworks (AFs), which has remained a pivotal point of reference for research in AI and argumentation ever since. This paper assesses the merits of Dung’s theory from an epistemological point of view. It argues that, despite its prominence in AI, the theory of AFs is epistemologically flawed. More specifically, abstract AFs don’t provide a normatively adequate model for the… Expand
1 Citations
Rethinking specificity in defeasible reasoning and its effect in argument reinstatement
It is found that problems arise when arguments in a chain of attacks are related by specificity: when non-maximally specific arguments are reinstated, fallacious justifications are originated. Expand


A Reasoning Model Based on the Production of Acceptable Arguments
  • L. Amgoud, C. Cayrol
  • Mathematics, Computer Science
  • Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence
  • 2004
The argumentation framework proposed by Dung is refined by taking into account preference relations between arguments in order to integrate two complementary points of view on the concept of acceptability, which refines previous works by Prakken and Sartor. Expand
On the evaluation of argumentation formalisms
This paper defines two important rationality postulates that should be satisfied: the consistency and the closure of the results returned by a rule-based argumentation system and provides a relatively easy way in which these rationality postulate can be warranted for a particular rule- based argumentation System developed within a European project on argumentation. Expand
The Epistemological Theory of Argument--How and Why?
The article outlines a general epistemological theory of argument: a theory that regards providingjustified belief as the principal aim of argumentation, and defends it instrumentalistically. AfterExpand
An overview of formal models of argumentation and their application in philosophy
This paper discusses how the formal models resulting from this research can clarify philosophical problems and issues, including those raised in the field of inform al logic. Expand
Reconstructing Popov v. Hayashi in a framework for argumentation with structured arguments and Dungean semantics
  • H. Prakken
  • Computer Science
  • Artificial Intelligence and Law
  • 2012
The tree structure of arguments, with explicit subargument relations between arguments, is used to capture the dependency relations between the elements of the court’s decision. Expand
Relating the Semantics of Abstract Dialectical Frameworks and Standard AFs
It is shown that (in a formally defined sense) any ADF can be simulated by an AF of similar size and that this translation can be realised by a polynomial time algorithm. Expand
A Formal Analysis of Logic-Based Argumentation Systems
A full correspondence between maximal consistent subbases of a KB and maximal conflict-free sets of arguments is shown, and it is shown also that stable and preferred extensions choose randomly some consistent subBASE of a base. Expand
On the merging of Dung's argumentation systems
A general framework for merging argumentation systems from Dung's theory of argumentation is presented and voting is used on the selected extensions of the resulting systems so as to characterize the acceptable arguments at the group level. Expand
An appreciation of John Pollock's work on the computational study of argument
John Pollock deserves to be remembered as one of the founding fathers of the field of computational argument and his work contains important lessons for current research in this field, reminding the richness of its object of study. Expand
On the Acceptability of Arguments in Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks
This paper extends the basic abstract argumentation framework, by taking into account two independent kinds of interaction between arguments: a defeat relation and a support relation, and proposes new semantics defined from characteristic properties that a set of arguments must satisfy in order to be an output of the argumentation process. Expand