Abduction in Argumentation Frameworks and Its Use in Debate Games

Abstract

Abstract. This paper studies an abduction problem in formal argumentation frameworks. Given an argument, an agent verifies whether the argument is justified or not in its argumentation framework. If the argument is not justified, the agent seeks conditions to explain the argument in its argumentation framework. We formulate such abductive reasoning in argumentation semantics and provide its computation in logic programming. Next we apply abduction in argumentation frameworks to reasoning by players in debate games. In debate games, two players have their own argumentation frameworks and each player builds claims to refute the opponent. A player may provide false or inaccurate arguments as a tactic to win the game. We show that abduction is used not only for seeking counter-claims but also for building dishonest claims in debate games.

Abduction and Dialogical Proof in Argumentation and Logic Programming

“…Remark 1. The main difference between Sakama's [20] model of abduction in abstract argumentation and the one presented here, is that he takes an explanation to be a set of independently selectable abducible arguments, while we take it to be a change to the AF that is applied as a whole. In section 5 we show that this is necessary when applying the abstract model in an instantiated setting.…”

“…We already discussed Sakama's [20] model of abduction in argumentation and mentioned some differences. Our approach is more general because we consider a hypothesis to be a change to the AF that is applied as a whole, instead of a set of independently selectable abducible arguments.…”

“…None of these works, however, made any explicit link with abduction. Sakama [20], on the other hand, explicitly focused on abduction, and presented a model in which additions as well as removals of arguments from an abstract AF act as explanations for the observation that an argument is accepted or rejected.…”

Constructing Weighted Argumentation Framework with Cognitive Maps

“…For example, when dealing with a fishing activity problem, having an evidence or an observation about an increase in the number of fishers, only some arguments be active and other do not. Some works dealing with dynamics in argumentation theory can be found in [12], [3], [9], [13].…”