The purpose of this paper is to study the fundamental mechanism humans use in argumentation and its role in different major approaches to commonsense reasoning in AI and logic programming. We present three novel results: We develop a theory for argumentation in which the acceptability of arguments is precisely defined. We show that logic programming and nonmonotonic reasoning in AI are different forms of argumentation. We show that argumentation can be viewed as a special form of logic programming with negation as failure. This result introduces a general method for generating metainterpreters for argumentation systems. 1.

Abduction in Logic Programming started in the late 80s, early 90s, in an attempt to extend logic programming into a framework suitable for a variety of problems in Artificial Intelligence and other areas of Computer Science. This paper aims to chart out the main developments of the field over the last ten years and to take a critical view of these developments from several perspectives: logical, epistemological, computational and suitability to application. The paper attempts to expose some of the challenges and prospects for the further development of the field.

In a multi-agent environment, where self-motivated agents try to pursue their own goals, cooperation cannot be taken for granted. Cooperation must be planned for and achieved through communication and negotiation. We present a logical model of the mental states of the agents based on a representation of their beliefs, desires, intentions, and goals. We present argumentation as an iterative process emerging from exchanges among agents to persuade each other and bring about a change in intentions. We look at argumentation as a mechanism for achieving cooperation and agreements. Using categories identified from human multi-agent negotiation, we demonstrate how the logic can be used to specify argument formulation and evaluation. We also illustrate how the developed logic can be used to describe different types of agents. Furthermore, we present a general Automated Negotiation Agent which we implemented, based on the logical model. Using this system, a user can analyze and explore differe...

We present an abstract framework for default reasoning, which includes Theorist, default logic, logic programming, autoepistemic logic, non-monotonic modal logics, and certain instances of circumscription as special cases. The framework can be understood as a generalisation of Theorist. The generalisation allows any theory formulated in a monotonic logic to be extended by a defeasible set of assumptions. An assumption can be defeated (or "attacked") if its "contrary" can be proved, possibly with the aid of other conflicting assumptions. We show that, given such a framework, the standard semantics of most logics for default reasoning can be understood as sanctioning a set of assumptions, as an extension of a given theory, if and only if the set of assumptions is conflict-free (in the sense that it does not attack itself) and it attacks every assumption not in the set. We propose a more liberal, argumentation-theoretic semantics, based upon the notion of admissible extension in logic pro...

Logical models of argument formalize commonsense reasoning while taking process and computation seriously. This survey discusses the main ideas which characterize different logical models of argument. It presents the formal features of a few main approaches to the modeling of argumentation. We trace the

The work reported here introduces Defeasible Logic Programming (DeLP), a formalism that combines results of Logic Programming and Defeasible Argumentation. DeLP provides the possibility of representing information in the form of weak rules in a declarative manner, and a defeasible argumentation inference mechanism for warranting the entailed conclusions. In DeLP an argumentation formalism will be used for deciding between contradictory goals. Queries will be supported by arguments that could be defeated by other arguments. A query q will succeed when there is an argument A for q that is warranted, i. e. the argument A that supports q is found undefeated by a warrant procedure that implements a dialectical analysis. The defeasible argumentation basis of DeLP allows to build applications that deal with incomplete and contradictory information in dynamic domains. Thus, the resulting approach is suitable for representing agent’s knowledge and for providing an argumentation based reasoning mechanism to agents.

The Zeno Argumentation Framework is a formal model of argumentation based on the informal models of Toulmin and Rittel. Its main feature is a labelling function using arguments to compute heuristic information about the relative quality of the alternative positions proposed as solutions for some practical issue. The Zeno Argumentation Framework was designed to be used in mediation systems, an advanced kind of electronic discussion forum with special support for argumentation, negotiation and other structured forms of group decision-making. 1 Problem Statement The cities of Bonn and Sankt Augustin are planning a residential area and high-technology "park" in an area between the two cities. This area was zoned for agricultural purposes only, so a formal proposal was made to change the zoning ordinance. According to local law, changes of this kind are subject to a formal review procedure. This procedure requires that the plan be made available to the general public for their comments, cr...

One of the central questions of legal philosophy concerns the division of power between the judicial and legislative branches of government: where is the border between a judge's power to decide cases by applying the law, and the legislature's power to create law? How should it be decided whether or not a judge has exceeded the limits of his discretion? The Pleadings Game is a normative formalization and computational model of legal reasoning and argumentation intended to help answer these questions. In the prominent theory of H.L.A. Hart, judicial discretion is limited by the literal meaning of legislation. To use the standard example, if a law prohibits vehicles from a park, according to Hart's theory a judge would not have discretion to permit a military tank, even if intended to be used as a war memorial. The Pleadings Game is based on another approach, Robert Alexy's discourse theory of legal argumentation. Alexy views legal reasoning as a rule governed language game, where the r...

This paper relates the Defeasible Logic Programming (DeLP ) framework and its semantics SEM DeLP to classical logic programming frameworks. In DeLP we distinguish between two different sorts of rules: strict and defeasible rules. Negative literals (A) in these rules are considered to represent classical negation. In contrast to this, in normal logic programming (NLP ), there is only one kind of rules, but the meaning of negative literals (notA) is different: they represent a kind of negation as failure, and thereby introduce defeasibility. Various semantics have been defined for NLP, notably the well-founded semantics WFS and the stable semantics Stable. In this paper we consider the transformation properties for NLP introduced by Brass and Dix and suitably adjusted for the DeLP framework. We show which transformation properties are satisfied, thereby identifying aspects in which NLP and DeLP differ. We contend that the transformation rules presented in this paper can he...

We explore a framework for argumentation (based on classical logic) in which an argument is a pair where the first item in the pair is a minimal consistent set of formulae that proves the second item (which is a formula). We provide some basic definitions for arguments, and various kinds of counter-arguments (defeaters). This leads us to the definition of canonical undercuts which we argue are the only defeaters that we need to take into account. We then motivate and formalise the notion of argument trees and argument structures which provide a way of exhaustively collating arguments and counter-arguments. We use argument structures as the basis of our general proposal for argument aggregation.