Generalizations of dung frameworks and their role in formal argumentation

This article provides a short survey of some of the most popular abstract argumentation frameworks available today. The authors present the general idea of abstract argumentation, highlighting the role of abstract frameworks in the argumentation process, and review the original Dung frameworks and their semantics. A discussion of generalizations of these frameworks follows, focusing on structures taking preferences and values into account and approaches in which not only attack but also support relations can be modeled. Finally, the authors review the concept of abstract dialectical frameworks, one of the most general systems for abstract argumentation providing a flexible, principled representation of arbitrary argument relations

Towards a General Argumentation System based on Answer-Set Programming

Within the last years, especially since the work proposed by Dung in 1995, argumentation has emerged as a central issue in Artificial Intelligence. With the so called argumentation frameworks (AFs) it is possible to represent statements (arguments) together with a binary attack relation between them. The conflicts between the statements are solved on a semantical level by selecting acceptable sets of arguments. An increasing amount of data requires an automated computation of such solutions. Logic Programming in particular Answer-Set Programming (ASP) turned out to be adequate to solve problems associated to such AFs. In this work we use ASP to design a sophisticated system for the evaluation of several types of argumentation frameworks

An Argumentation‐Based Analysis of the Simonshaven Case

In an argumentation approach, legal evidential reasoning is modeled as the construction and attack of “trees of inference” from evidence to conclusions by applying generalizations to evidence or intermediate conclusions. In this paper, an argumentation‐based analysis of the Simonshaven case is given in terms of a logical formalism for argumentation. The formalism combines abstract argumentation frameworks with accounts of the structure of arguments, of the ways they can be attacked and of ways to evaluate conflicting arguments. The purpose of this paper is not to demonstrate or argue that the argumentation approach to modeling legal evidential reasoning is feasible or even preferable but to have a fully worked‐out example that can be used in the comparison with alternative Bayesian or scenario‐based analyses

Deciding Acceptance in Incomplete Argumentation Frameworks

Peer reviewe