Semantics for Evidence-Based Argumentation

Nir Oren, Timothy J Norman

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contribution

57 Citations (Scopus)
4 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

The identification of consistent sets of arguments is one of the most important concerns in the development of computational models of argument. Such extensions drive the defeasible reasoning process. In this paper we present a novel framework that offers a semantics for argumentation-based reasoning grounded in an intuitive notion of evidence. In building this model of evidence-based argumentation, we first show how evidential support for and attack against one argument by multiple arguments can be represented. Secondly, we propose a new set of extensions, referred to as the evidential preferred, e-stable, and e-grounded extensions. These extensions are similar to those in Dung's original model, but are modified to cater for the notion of evidence. Our approach involves defining a new notion of attack, and showing how acceptability and admissibility follow on from it. These extensions capture the notion that an argument cannot be accepted unless it is supported by evidence, and will therefore increase the utility of argumentation as part of a reasoning system.
Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationComputational Models of Argument
Subtitle of host publicationProceedings of COMMA 2008
EditorsPhilippe Besnard, Sylvie Doutre, Anthony Hunter
Place of PublicationAmsterdam
PublisherIOS Press
Pages276-284
ISBN (Print)978-1-58603-859-5
Publication statusPublished - 2008

Publication series

NameFrontiers in artificial intelligence and applications
PublisherIOS Press
Volume172

Fingerprint

Argumentation
Evidentials
Attack
Dung
Acceptability
Computational Model
Defeasible Reasoning

Keywords

  • Artificial intelligence -- Computer simulation -- Congresses
  • Reasoning -- Computer simulation -- Congresses

Cite this

Oren, N., & Norman, T. J. (2008). Semantics for Evidence-Based Argumentation. In P. Besnard, S. Doutre, & A. Hunter (Eds.), Computational Models of Argument : Proceedings of COMMA 2008 (pp. 276-284). (Frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications; Vol. 172). Amsterdam: IOS Press.

Semantics for Evidence-Based Argumentation. / Oren, Nir; Norman, Timothy J.

Computational Models of Argument : Proceedings of COMMA 2008. ed. / Philippe Besnard; Sylvie Doutre; Anthony Hunter. Amsterdam : IOS Press, 2008. p. 276-284 (Frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications; Vol. 172).

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contribution

Oren, N & Norman, TJ 2008, Semantics for Evidence-Based Argumentation. in P Besnard, S Doutre & A Hunter (eds), Computational Models of Argument : Proceedings of COMMA 2008. Frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications, vol. 172, IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp. 276-284.
Oren N, Norman TJ. Semantics for Evidence-Based Argumentation. In Besnard P, Doutre S, Hunter A, editors, Computational Models of Argument : Proceedings of COMMA 2008. Amsterdam: IOS Press. 2008. p. 276-284. (Frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications).
Oren, Nir ; Norman, Timothy J. / Semantics for Evidence-Based Argumentation. Computational Models of Argument : Proceedings of COMMA 2008. editor / Philippe Besnard ; Sylvie Doutre ; Anthony Hunter. Amsterdam : IOS Press, 2008. pp. 276-284 (Frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications).
@inproceedings{5f222891e72c421a893ccbe50c855469,
title = "Semantics for Evidence-Based Argumentation",
abstract = "The identification of consistent sets of arguments is one of the most important concerns in the development of computational models of argument. Such extensions drive the defeasible reasoning process. In this paper we present a novel framework that offers a semantics for argumentation-based reasoning grounded in an intuitive notion of evidence. In building this model of evidence-based argumentation, we first show how evidential support for and attack against one argument by multiple arguments can be represented. Secondly, we propose a new set of extensions, referred to as the evidential preferred, e-stable, and e-grounded extensions. These extensions are similar to those in Dung's original model, but are modified to cater for the notion of evidence. Our approach involves defining a new notion of attack, and showing how acceptability and admissibility follow on from it. These extensions capture the notion that an argument cannot be accepted unless it is supported by evidence, and will therefore increase the utility of argumentation as part of a reasoning system.",
keywords = "Artificial intelligence -- Computer simulation -- Congresses , Reasoning -- Computer simulation -- Congresses",
author = "Nir Oren and Norman, {Timothy J}",
year = "2008",
language = "English",
isbn = "978-1-58603-859-5",
series = "Frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications",
publisher = "IOS Press",
pages = "276--284",
editor = "Besnard, {Philippe } and Doutre, {Sylvie } and Hunter, {Anthony }",
booktitle = "Computational Models of Argument",

}

TY - GEN

T1 - Semantics for Evidence-Based Argumentation

AU - Oren, Nir

AU - Norman, Timothy J

PY - 2008

Y1 - 2008

N2 - The identification of consistent sets of arguments is one of the most important concerns in the development of computational models of argument. Such extensions drive the defeasible reasoning process. In this paper we present a novel framework that offers a semantics for argumentation-based reasoning grounded in an intuitive notion of evidence. In building this model of evidence-based argumentation, we first show how evidential support for and attack against one argument by multiple arguments can be represented. Secondly, we propose a new set of extensions, referred to as the evidential preferred, e-stable, and e-grounded extensions. These extensions are similar to those in Dung's original model, but are modified to cater for the notion of evidence. Our approach involves defining a new notion of attack, and showing how acceptability and admissibility follow on from it. These extensions capture the notion that an argument cannot be accepted unless it is supported by evidence, and will therefore increase the utility of argumentation as part of a reasoning system.

AB - The identification of consistent sets of arguments is one of the most important concerns in the development of computational models of argument. Such extensions drive the defeasible reasoning process. In this paper we present a novel framework that offers a semantics for argumentation-based reasoning grounded in an intuitive notion of evidence. In building this model of evidence-based argumentation, we first show how evidential support for and attack against one argument by multiple arguments can be represented. Secondly, we propose a new set of extensions, referred to as the evidential preferred, e-stable, and e-grounded extensions. These extensions are similar to those in Dung's original model, but are modified to cater for the notion of evidence. Our approach involves defining a new notion of attack, and showing how acceptability and admissibility follow on from it. These extensions capture the notion that an argument cannot be accepted unless it is supported by evidence, and will therefore increase the utility of argumentation as part of a reasoning system.

KW - Artificial intelligence -- Computer simulation -- Congresses

KW - Reasoning -- Computer simulation -- Congresses

M3 - Conference contribution

SN - 978-1-58603-859-5

T3 - Frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications

SP - 276

EP - 284

BT - Computational Models of Argument

A2 - Besnard, Philippe

A2 - Doutre, Sylvie

A2 - Hunter, Anthony

PB - IOS Press

CY - Amsterdam

ER -