The Community for Technology Leaders
RSS Icon
Subscribe
Issue No.06 - November/December (2007 vol.22)
pp: 24-33
Dorian Gaertner , Imperial College London
Francesca Toni , Imperial College London
ABSTRACT
CaSAPI (Credulous and Skeptical Argumentation: Prolog Implementation) 3.0 determines the acceptability of claims, using the general-purpose framework of assumption-based argumentation, under the semantics of admissible extensions. This framework reduces the problem of computing arguments for and against claims to the problem of computing assumptions supporting these arguments. Unlike earlier computational models of assumption-based argumentation, CaSAPI 3.0 renders explicit the underlying dialectical structure of arguments and counterarguments. So, this system is beneficial for developing applications of argumentation requiring explicit justifications of claims in terms of full argument structures. This article is part of a special issue on argumentation technology.
INDEX TERMS
argumentation, implemented systems, dialectical structure
CITATION
Dorian Gaertner, Francesca Toni, "Computing Arguments and Attacks in Assumption-Based Argumentation", IEEE Intelligent Systems, vol.22, no. 6, pp. 24-33, November/December 2007, doi:10.1109/MIS.2007.105
REFERENCES
1. P.M. Dung, "The Acceptability of Arguments and Its Fundamental Role in Non-monotonic Reasoning and Logic Programming and N-Person Game," Artificial Intelligence, vol. 77, no. 2, 1995, pp. 321–357.
2. A. Bondarenko et al., "An Abstract, Argumentation-Theoretic Framework for Default Reasoning," Artificial Intelligence, vol. 93, nos. 1–2, 1997, pp. 63–101.
3. P.M. Dung, R.A. Kowalski, and F. Toni, "Dialectic Proof Procedures for Assumption-Based, Admissible Argumentation," Artificial Intelligence, vol. 170, no. 2, 2006, pp. 114–159.
4. P.M. Dung, P. Mancarella, and F. Toni, "Computing Ideal Sceptical Argumentation," Artificial Intelligence, vol. 171, nos. 10–15, 2007, pp. 642–674.
5. D. Gaertner and F. Toni, "CaSAPI: A System for Credulous and Sceptical Argumentation," Proc. ArgNMR, LPNMR Workshop Argumentation and Non-monotonic Reasoning, 2007, pp. 80–95; http://lia.deis.unibo.it/confs/ArgNMR/proceedings ArgNMR-proceedings.pdf.
6. M. Morge and P. Mancarella, "The Hedgehog and the Fox: An Argumentation-Based Decision Support System," Proc. 4th Int'l Workshop Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems (ArgMAS 07), 2007; http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/irahwan/argmas/ argmas07argmas2007proceedings.pdf.
7. C. Reed and D. Walton, "Towards a Formal and Implemented Model of Argumentation Schemes in Agent Communication," Proc. 1st Int'l Workshop Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems (ArgMAS 04), Springer, 2004, pp. 19–30; http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/irahwan/argmas/ argmas04/papers08.pdf.
8. H. Prakken and G. Sartor, "On the Relation between Legal Language and Legal Argument: Assumptions, Applicability and Dynamic Priorities," Proc. 5th Int'l Conf. Artificial Intelligence and the Law (ICAIL95), ACM Press, 1995, pp. 1–10.
9. D. Gaertner and F. Toni, "Conflict-Free Normative Agents Using Assumption-Based Argumentation," Proc. 4th Int'l Workshop Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems (ArgMAS 07), 2007; http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/irahwan/argmas/ argmas07argmas2007proceedings.pdf.
10. N. Demetriou and A.C. Kakas, "Argumentation with Abduction," Proc. 4th Panhellenic Symp. Logic, 2003.
11. M. Caminada et al., "Implementations of Argument-Based Inference," Rev. of Argumentation Technology, 2004, pp. 2–13.
12. A. Garcia and G. Simari, "Defeasible Logic Programming: An Argumentative Approach," J. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming, vol. 4, nos. 1–2, 2004, pp. 95–138.
13. D. Bryant and P. Krause, "An Implementation of a Lightweight Argumentation Engine for Agent Applications," Logics in Artificial Intelligence: Proc. 10th European Conf. (JELIA06), LNAI 4160, Springer, 2006, pp. 469–472.
5 ms
(Ver 2.0)

Marketing Automation Platform Marketing Automation Tool