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

Arguing with Preferences in EcoBioCap

International audienceIn this paper we present the EcoBioCap project and the modelling needs of this project in terms of argumentation based preference aggregation. The aim of the paper is to well describe the problem encountered in this context and to propose a preference logic in line with the expressivity needed by the application. We then show how to embed this logic within the ASPIC+ system. Finally, we show how argument by expert opinion could be integrated within our framework where preference aggregation needs to take into consideration the different expertise of the project stakeholders

Unpacking Arguments

Although argumentation is often studied in AI using abstract frameworks, actual debate often shows a dynamic interaction between argument structure and attack. Often intermediates steps in the reasoning are omitted, but it may be these intermediate steps which are the vulnerable parts of the argument. Inspired by Loui and Norman’s work on the rationale of arguments, we study the relation between argument structure and attack in terms of the unpacking of arguments. The paper provides an analysis of two kinds of rationales discussed by Loui and Norman. Example dialogues inspired by Dutch tort law are used for illustration.</jats:p

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