In the current paper, we re-examine the connection between formal argumentation and logic programming from the perspective of semantics. We observe that one particular translation from logic programs to instantiated argumentation (the one described by Wu, Caminada and Gabbay) is able to serve as a basis for describing various equivalences between logic programming semantics and argumentation se...

My interests focus on the comparison between the abductive argumentation supporting a conjecture and the related proof. In particular, .the purpose of my research is to show the importance of a structural analysis between them (from an abductive argumentation to a deductive proof, from an abductive argumentation to an abductive “proof”). I propose the Toulmin’s model as a tool which can be used...

Work on argumentation-based dialogue systems often assumes that the adoption of argumentation leads to improved dialogue efficiency and effectiveness. Several studies have taken an experimental approach to prove these alleged benefits, but none has yet supported the expressiveness of a structured argumentation logic. This paper shows how the use of argumentation in deliberation style dialogues ...

An important skill in critical thinking and argumentation is the ability to spot and recognize fallacies. Fallacious arguments, omnipresent in argumentative discourse, can be deceptive, manipulative, or simply leading to ‘wrong moves’ in a discussion. Despite their importance, argumentation scholars and NLP researchers with focus on argumentation quality have not yet investigated fallacies empi...

In this paper we make a contribution to the unification of formal models of defeasible reasoning. We present several translations between formal argumentation frameworks and nonmonotonic logics for reasoning with plausible assumptions. More specifically, we translate adaptive logics into assumption-based argumentation and ASPIC, ASPIC into assumption-based argumentation and a fragment of assump...

In the current review paper, we provide an overview of how mainstream argumentation semantics can be interpreted in terms of structured discussion. The idea is that an argument is justified according to a particular argumentation semantics iff it is possible to win a discussion of a particular type. Hence, different argumentation semantics correspond to different types of discussion. Our aim is...

We survey the current state of the art of general techniques, as well as specific software systems for solving tasks in abstract argumentation frameworks, structured argumentation frameworks, and approaches for visualizing and analysing argumentation. Furthermore, we discuss challenges and promising techniques such as parallel processing and approximation approaches. Finally, we address the iss...

The main aim of my PhD thesis is to develop a theory for arguing in groups and apply it to allow agents in open MultiAgent societies to reach agreements by using argumentation. The thesis proposes a computational argumentation framework for agent societies. Also, a protocol that allows agents in multi-agent societies to engage in argumentation processes is also being developed. ACM Categories: ...