Detail

Extended Argumentation Frameworks

Dung’s abstract argumentation theory provides a general framework for various species of non-monotonic reasoning. A Dung framework’s arguments constitute proofs of claims in some underlying logic, and these arguments are related by an attack relation that accounts for the notion of conflict in the underlying logic. The justified arguments of a framework are then evaluated under different semantics, where the claims of the justified arguments equate with the underlying theory’s inferences. In recent work I have extended Dung’s theory to accommodate arguments that attack attacks as well as arguments. In this way one can encode argumentation-based reasoning about possibly conflicting preferences between arguments. The extended theory has been proposed as a unifying framework for non-monotonic formalisms that accommodate defeasible reasoning about preferences, and as an argumentation semantics for flexible, adaptive agent defeasible reasoning. In this talk I will review the extended theory, present argument game dialectical proof theories for evaluating the justified status of arguments in an extended framework, and look forward to future developments.