Agents and Arguments

Argumentation Frameworks Dung s Abstract Argumentation framework * AF = (Args, Attack) where Attack Args Args Calculus of opposition applied to determine winning arguments A1 A2 A3 (publish) (not political) (political) (Args, Attack) abstracts from underlying logic based definition of Args and Attack Args = proofs of conclusions (claims) Attack = logic specific definition of conflict x * P. M. Dung. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence, 77:321 357, 1995 Propositional Classical Logic Example is a set of propositional classical logic formulae Args = { (H,h) | H is consistent, H h, H is minimal} (H1,h1) and (H2,h2) rebut attack each other iff h1 h2 (H1,h1) undercut attacks (H2,h2) iff h1 h for some h H2 ( {nat, pol, nat pol pub} , pub ) ( { res, res pol} : pol ) ( {mid, mid pol } : pol ) = {nat, pol, nat pol pub, res, res pol, mid, mid pol } L. Amgoud and C. Cayrol. A reasoning model based on the production of acceptable arguments. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 34(1-3):197 215, 2002. Rule based example arguments built from sequences of rules with literals, strong negation, and negation as failure [ not e [d c] ] undercut attack (type 1) x [ b, b c] [ d, d c] rebut attack