Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-n2sc8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-06T19:18:20.478Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An introduction to argumentation semantics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 December 2011

Pietro Baroni ,
Martin Caminada  and
Massimiliano Giacomin
Pietro Baroni*
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Ingegneria dell'Informazione, Università di Brescia, Via Branze 38, 25123 Brescia, Italy; e-mail: [email protected], [email protected]
Martin Caminada*
Affiliation:
Interdisciplinary Centre for Security, Reliability and Trust, Université du Luxembourg, 6 rue Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi, L-1359 Luxembourg, Luxembourg; e-mail: [email protected]
Massimiliano Giacomin*
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Ingegneria dell'Informazione, Università di Brescia, Via Branze 38, 25123 Brescia, Italy; e-mail: [email protected], [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper presents an overview on the state of the art of semantics for abstractargumentation, covering both some of the most influential literature proposalsand some general issues concerning semantics definition and evaluation. As tothe former point, the paper reviews Dung's original notions ofcomplete, grounded, preferred, and stable semantics, as well as subsequentlyproposed notions like semi-stable, ideal, stage, and CF2 semantics, consideringboth the extension-based and the labelling-based approaches with respect totheir definitions. As to the latter point, the paper presents an extensive setof general properties for semantics evaluation and analyzes the notions ofargument justification and skepticism. The final part of the paper is focused onthe discussion of some relationships between semantics properties anddomain-specific requirements.

Type
Tutorial
Information
The Knowledge Engineering Review , Volume 26 , Issue 4 , December 2011 , pp. 365 - 410
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alferes, J. J., Dung, P. M., Pereira, L. 1993. Scenario semantics of extended logic programs. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Logic Programming and Non-monotonic Reasoning, Nerode, A. & Pereira, L. (eds). MIT Press, 334–348.Google Scholar
Amgoud, L. 2009. Argumentation for decision making. In Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, Rahwan, I. & Simari, G. R. (eds). Springer, 301–320.Google Scholar
Baroni, P., Giacomin, M. 2003. Solving semantic problems with odd-length cycles in argumentation. In Proceedings of the 7th European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty (ECSQARU 2003), 2711 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence. Springer Verlag, 440–451.Google Scholar
Baroni, P., Giacomin, M. 2007. On principle-based evaluation of extension-based argumentation semantics. Artificial Intelligence 171(10–15), 675–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baroni, P., Giacomin, M. 2009a. Skepticism relations for comparing argumentation semantics. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 50(6), 854–866.Google Scholar
Baroni, P., Giacomin, M. 2009b. Semantics of abstract argument systems. In Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, Rahwan, I. & Simari, G. R. (eds). Springer, 25–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baroni, P., Giacomin, M., Guida, G. 2004. Towards a formalization of skepticism in extension-based argumentation semantics. In Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument (CMNA 2004). Valencia, Spain, 47–52.Google Scholar
Baroni, P., Giacomin, M., Guida, G. 2005. SCC-recursiveness: a general schema for argumentation semantics. Artificial Intelligence 168(1–2), 165–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caminada, M. W. A. 2005. Contamination in formal argumentation systems. In Proceedings of the 17th Belgium-Netherlands Conference on Artificial Intelligence (BNAIC). Brussels, Belgium, 59–65.Google Scholar
Caminada, M. W. A. 2006a. On the issue of reinstatement in argumentation. In Proceedings of the 10th European Conference on Logics in Artificial Intelligence (JELIA 2006), 4160 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Fischer, M., van der Hoek, W., Konev, B. & Lisitsa, A. (eds). Springer, 111–123.Google Scholar
Caminada, M. W. A. 2006b. Semi-stable semantics. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2006), 144 of Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, Dunne, P. E. & Bench-Capon, T. J. M. (eds). IOS Press, 121–130.Google Scholar
Caminada, M. W. A. 2007a. An algorithm for computing semi-stable semantics. In Proceedings of the 9th European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitalive Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty (ECSQARU 2007), 4724 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Springer Verlag, 222–234.Google Scholar
Caminada, M. W. A. 2007b. Comparing two unique extension semantics for formal argumentation: ideal and eager. In Proceedings of the 19th Belgian-Dutch Conference on Artificial Intelligence (BNAIC 2007), Dastani, M. M. & de Jong, E. (eds), 81–87.Google Scholar
Caminada, M. W. A. 2010a. An algorithm for stage semantics. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2010), 216 of Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, Baroni, P., Cerutti, F., Giacomin, M. & Simari, G. R. (eds). IOS Press, 147–158.Google Scholar
Caminada, M. W. A. 2010b. Preferred semantics as socratic discussion. In Proceedings of the Eleventh AI*IA Symposium on Artificial Intelligence, Gerevini, A. E. & Saetti, A. (eds), pp. 209–216.Google Scholar
Caminada, M. W. A. 2011. A labelling approach for ideal and stage semantics. Argument and Computation 2(1), 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caminada, M. W. A., Amgoud, L. 2007. On the evaluation of argumentation formalisms. Artificial Intelligence 171(5–6), 286–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caminada, M. W. A., Gabbay, D. 2009. A logical account of formal argumentation. Studia Logica (Special issue: New Ideas in Argumentation Theory) 93(2–3), 109–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caminada, M. W. A., Pigozzi, G. 2011. On judgment aggregation in abstract argumentation. Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 22(1), 64–102.Google Scholar
Caminada, M. W. A., Verheij, B. 2010. On the existence of semi-stable extensions. In Proceedings of the 22nd Benelux Conference on Artificial Intelligence (BNAIC 2010). Luxembourg, http://bnaic2010.uni.lu/Papers/Category20A/Caminada.pdf.Google Scholar
Caminada, M. W. A., Wu, Y. 2009. An argument game of stable semantics. Logic Journal of IGPL 17(1), 77–90.Google Scholar
Caminada, M. W. A., Carnielli, W., Dunne, P. E. 2011. Semi-stable semantics. Journal of Logic and Computation (in press).Google Scholar
Carnielli, W., Coniglio, M., Marcos, J. 2002. Logics of formal inconsistency. In Handbook of Philosophical Logic, 2nd edn, 14, Gabbay, D. & Guenthner, F. (eds). Springer Verlag, 15–114.Google Scholar
Cayrol, C., Doutre, S., Mengin, J. 2003. On decision problems related to the preferred semantics for argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation 13(3), 377–403.Google Scholar
Dung, P. M. 1995. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence 77, 321–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dung, P. M., Mancarella, P., Toni, F. 2007. Computing ideal sceptical argumentation. Artificial Intelligence 171(10–15), 642–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunne, P. E., Wooldridge, M. 2009. Complexity of abstract argumentation. In Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, Rahwan, I. & Simari, G. R. (eds). Springer, 85–104.Google Scholar
Dvořák, W. 2011. On the complexity of computing the justification status of an argument. In First International Workshop on the Theory and Applications of Formal Argumentation (TAFA), Modgil, S., Oren, N. & Toni, F. (eds). Springer.Google Scholar
Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V. 1988. The stable model semantics for logic programming. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference/Symposium on Logic Programming, MIT Press, 1070–1080.Google Scholar
Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V. 1991. Classical negation in logic programs and disjunctive databases. New Generation Computing 9(3/4), 365–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Governatori, G., Maher, M., Antoniou, G., Billington, D. 2004. Argumentation semantics for defeasible logic. Journal of Logic and Computation 14(5), 675–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jakobovits, H., Vermeir, D. 1999. Robust semantics for argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation 9(2), 215–261.Google Scholar
Modgil, S., Caminada, M. W. A. 2009. Proof theories and algorithms for abstract argumentation frameworks. In Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, Rahwan, I. & Simari, G. R. (eds). Springer, 105–129.Google Scholar
Nute, D. 1994. Defeasible logic. In Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming Gabbay, D., Hogger, C. J. & Robinson, J. A. (eds). Clarendon Press, 253–395.Google Scholar
Pollock, J. L. 1992. How to reason defeasibly. Artificial Intelligence 57, 1–42.Google Scholar
Pollock, J. L. 1995. Cognitive Carpentry. A Blueprint for How to Build a Person, MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollock, J. L. 2001. Defeasible reasoning with variable degrees of justification. Artificial Intelligence 133, 233–282.Google Scholar
Prakken, H. 2010. An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. Argument and Computation 1(2), 93–124.Google Scholar
Rahwan, I., Larson, K. 2008. Pareto optimality in abstract argumentation. In Proceedings of the 23rd Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2008), AAAI Press, 150–155.Google Scholar
Rahwan, I., Simari, G. R. 2009. Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence. Springer.Google Scholar
Rahwan, I., Tohmé, F. 2010. Collective argument evaluation as judgement aggregation. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2010), Toronto, Canada.Google Scholar
Reiter, R. 1980. A logic for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 13, 81–132.Google Scholar
Simari, G. R., Loui, R. P. 1992. A mathematical treatment of defeasible reasoning and its implementation. Artificial Intelligence 53, 125–157.Google Scholar
Verheij, B. 1996. Two approaches to dialectical argumentation: admissible sets and argumentation stages. In Proceedings of the 8th Dutch Conference on Artificial Intelligence (NAIC'96), Meyer, J.-J. & van der Gaag, L. (eds). Utrecht University, 357–368.Google Scholar
Verheij, B. 2003. Deflog: on the logical interpretation of prima facie justified assumptions. Journal of Logic and Computation 13, 319–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verheij, B. 2007. A labeling approach to the computation of credulous acceptance in argumentation. In Proceedings of the 20th International Joint Conference on Artifical Intelligence, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc, 623–628.Google Scholar
Vreeswijk, G. A. W. 1993. Studies in Defeasible Argumentation. PhD thesis at Free University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Vreeswijk, G. A. W. 1997. Abstract argumentation systems. Artificial Intelligence 90, 225–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vreeswijk, G. A. W., Prakken, H. 2000. Credulous and sceptical argument games for preferred semantics. In Proceedings of the 7th European Conference on Logic for Artificial Intelligence (JELIA 2000), 1919 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Springer Verlag, 239–253.Google Scholar
Vreeswijk, G. A. W. 2006. An algorithm to compute minimally grounded and admissible defence sets in argument systems. In Proceedings of 1st International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2006), 144 of Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, Dunne, P. & Bench-Capon, T. (eds). IOS Press, 109–120.Google Scholar
Weydert, E. 2011. Semi-stable extensions for infinite frameworks. In Proceedings of the 23rd Benelux Conference on Artificial Intelligence (BNAIC 2011), Gent, Belgium.Google Scholar
Wu, Y., Caminada, M. W. A. 2010. A labelling-based justification status of arguments. Studies in Logic 3(4), 12–29.Google Scholar