A Constructive Argumentation Framework

• Published in: Proceedings of the ... AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence 2014-06, Vol.28 (1)
• Main Authors: Kaci, Souhila, Salhi, Yakoub
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• ISSN: 2159-5399; 2374-3468
• DOI: 10.1609/aaai.v28i1.8851

Dung's argumentation framework is an abstract framework based on a set of arguments and a binary attack relation defined over the set. One instantiation, among many others, of Dung's framework consists in constructing the arguments from a set of propositional logic formulas. Thus an argument is seen as a reason for or against the truth of a particular statement. Despite its advantages, the argumentation approach for inconsistency handling also has important shortcomings. More precisely, in some applications what one is interested in are not so much only the conclusions supported by the arguments but also the precise explications of such conclusions. We show that argumentation framework applied to classical logic formulas is not suitable to deal with this problem. On the other hand, intuitionistic logic appears to be a natural alternative candidate logic (instead of classical logic) to instantiate Dung's framework. We develop constructive argumentation framework. We show that intuitionistic logic offers nice and desirable properties of the arguments. We also provide a characterization of the arguments in this setting in terms of minimal inconsistent subsets when intuitionistic logic is embedded in the modal logic S4.