Abstract
This paper presents an approach to modelling and reasoning about arguments that exploits and combines two of the most popular mechanisms used within computational modelling of argumentation: argumentation schemes and abstract argumentation frameworks. Our proposal combines the desirable properties of each by representing the components of argumentation schemes as argumentation frameworks. This allows us to make use of the structure provided by the schemes to guide dialogues and provide contextual elements of evaluation, whilst retaining the desirable properties of abstract frameworks to enable evaluation with respect to the logical relations between arguments. Our proposal takes account of dialogical aspects within a debate, such as burden of proof, and we illustrate our approach through a particular argumentation scheme, namely argument from expert opinion.
Access provided by Autonomous University of Puebla. Download to read the full chapter text
Chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
References
Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C.: On the acceptability of arguments in preference-based argumentation. In: Cooper, G.F., Moral, S. (eds.) Proccedings of the Fourteenth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI 1998), pp. 1–7. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1998)
Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Action-based alternating transition systems for arguments about action. In: Proceedings of the Twenty Second Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2007), pp. 24–29. AAAI Press, Menlo Park (2007)
Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T.J.M., McBurney, P.: Computational representation of practical argument. Synthese 152(2), 157–206 (2006)
Barbuceanu, M.: Coordinating agents by role based social constraints and conversation plans. In: Proceedings of the Fourteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 1997), pp. 16–21. AAAI Press, Menlo Park (1997)
Barbuceanu, M., Fox, M.S.: COOL: A language for describing coordination in multi agent systems. In: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Multiagent Systems, pp. 17–24 (1995)
Baroni, P., Giacomin, M.: A systematic classification of argumentation frameworks where semantics agree. In: Besnard, B., Doutre, S., Hunter, A. (eds.) Computational Models of Argument, Proceedings of COMMA 2008. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 172, pp. 37–48. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2008)
Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Persuasion in practical argument using value based argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation 13(3), 429–448 (2003)
Dimopoulos, Y., Nebel, B., Toni, F.: On the computational complexity of assumption-based argumentation for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 141(1–2), 57–78 (2002)
Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence 77, 321–357 (1995)
Dunne, P.E.: Computational properties of argument systems satisfying graph-theoretic constraints. Artificial Intelligence 171(10–15), 701–729 (2007)
Gordon, T., Prakken, H., Walton, D.: The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof. Artificial Intelligence 171(10-15), 875–896 (2007)
Perelman, C., Olbrechts-Tyteca, L.: The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame (1969)
Prakken, H.: Coherence and flexibility in dialogue games for argumentation. Journal of Logic and Computation 15, 1009–1040 (2005)
Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: Presumptions and burdens of proof. In: Legal Knowledge and Information Systems. JURIX 2006: The Nineteenth Annual Conference, pp. 21–30. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2006)
Rahwan, I.: Mass argumentation and the semantic web. Journal of Web Semantics 6(1), 29–37 (2008)
Reed, C.A., Rowe, G.W.A.: Araucaria: Software for argument analysis, diagramming and representation. International Journal of AI Tools 14(3–4), 961–980 (2004)
Verheij, B.: Dialectical argumentation with argumentation schemes. Artificial Intelligence and Law 11(2–3), 167–195 (2003)
Walton, D.N.: Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning. LEA, Mahwah, NJ, USA (1996)
Wyner, A.Z., Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Argument schemes for legal case-based reasoning. In: The Twentieth Annual Conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems. JURIX 2007, pp. 139–149. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2007)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2008 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T. (2008). Abstract Argumentation Scheme Frameworks. In: Dochev, D., Pistore, M., Traverso, P. (eds) Artificial Intelligence: Methodology, Systems, and Applications. AIMSA 2008. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 5253. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-85776-1_19
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-85776-1_19
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-85775-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-85776-1
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)