We develop a model of abduction in abstract argumentation, where changes to an argumentation framework act as hypotheses to explain the support of an observation. We present dialogical proof theories for the main decision problems (i.e., finding hypothe- ses that explain skeptical credulous support) and we show that our model can be instantiated on the basis of abductive logic programs.
@cite_11 use term rewriting logic to compute changes to an abstract AF with the goal of changing the status of an argument. Two similarities to our work are: (1) our production rules to generate dialogues can be seen as a kind of term rewriting rules. (2) their approach amounts to rewriting goals into statements to the effect that certain attacks in the AF are enabled or disabled. These statements resemble the moves @math and @math in our system. However, they treat attacks as entities that can be enabled or disabled independently. As discussed, different arguments (or in this case attacks associated with arguments) cannot be regarded as independent entities, if the abstract model is instantiated.
@cite_11
74587951
When several agents are engaged in an argumentation process, they are faced with the problem of deciding how to contribute to the current state of the debate in order to satisfy their own goal, ie. to make an argument under a given semantics accepted or not. In this paper, we study the minimal changes or target sets on the current state of the debate that are required to achieve such a goal, where changes are the addition and or deletion of attacks among arguments. We study some properties of these target sets, and propose a Maude specification of rewriting rules which allow to compute all the target sets for some types of goals.