Computational models of argumentation

The computational study of argumentation concerns two aspects: reasoning and dialogue.

Argumentation as a form of reasoning makes explicit the reasons for the conclusions that are drawn and how conflicts between reasons are resolved. Systems for argumentation-based inference were orginally developed in the field of nonmonotonic logic, which formalises qualitative reasoning with incomplete, uncertain or inconsistent information. Argument-based systems have been very successful as nonmonotonic logics, since they are based on very natural concepts, such as argument, counterargument, rebuttal and defeat. An early overview of this field is my handbook chapter with Gerard Vreeswijk.

My first contribution to this field (with Giovanni Sartor) was a system with the first published argument game for grounded semantics, and with one of the first mechanisms for arguing about preferences (Prakken & Sartor 1997). Currently I am working on An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments (now called the ASPIC+ framework), in which I try to integrate the work of Dung, Pollock, Vreeswijk, and others. Some recent work on ASPIC+ is with Sanjay Modgil, e.g. our AI Journal 2013 paper, a 2014 tutorial paper and a 2018 handbook chapter. I am also interested in the relation between models of abstract and structured argumentation; see e.g. my ECAI 2014 paper and a recent CMNA 2020 paper, both on bipolar argumentation frameworks, my COMMA 2018 paper with Michiel de Winter on the dangers of abstraction in argumentation, and my KR 2018 paper on probabilistic argumentation.

In models of inter-agent dialogue, argumentation is important when a conflict of opinion arises between negotiating or collaborating agents. Argumentation as a kind of dialogue provides a natural mechanism for the resolution of such disagreements. In my Synthese 2001 article on dynamic disputes I studied argument games in which agents dynamically exchange arguments in settings with distributed information. Among other things, I defined a structural notion of relevance of dialogue utterances. In my JLC 2005 article on Coherence and Flexibility in Dialogue Games for Argumentation I extended this work to dialogue games with richer communication languages. In 2006 I wrote an overview of work on Formal systems for persuasion dialogue.

Workshops and Conferences



Books and journals

Software, games, etc..


Leila Amgoud Pietro Baroni Trevor Bench-Capon Philippe Besnard Floris Bex Liz Black Simon Buckingham Shum Gerd Brewka Martin Caminada Frederico Cerutti Phan Minh Dung Paul Dunne Tim van Gelder Tom Gordon John Horty Tony Hunter Tony Kakas Robert Kowalski Peter McBurney Sanjay Modgil Nir Oren Simon Parsons John Pollock Iyad Rahwan Chris Reed Guillermo Simari Matthias Thimm Francesca Toni Paolo Torroni Leon van der Torre Bart Verheij Gerard Vreeswijk Stefan Woltran