Semantics for Evidence-Based Argumentation

Nir Oren, Timothy J Norman

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingPublished conference contribution

92 Citations (Scopus)
8 Downloads (Pure)


The identification of consistent sets of arguments is one of the most important concerns in the development of computational models of argument. Such extensions drive the defeasible reasoning process. In this paper we present a novel framework that offers a semantics for argumentation-based reasoning grounded in an intuitive notion of evidence. In building this model of evidence-based argumentation, we first show how evidential support for and attack against one argument by multiple arguments can be represented. Secondly, we propose a new set of extensions, referred to as the evidential preferred, e-stable, and e-grounded extensions. These extensions are similar to those in Dung's original model, but are modified to cater for the notion of evidence. Our approach involves defining a new notion of attack, and showing how acceptability and admissibility follow on from it. These extensions capture the notion that an argument cannot be accepted unless it is supported by evidence, and will therefore increase the utility of argumentation as part of a reasoning system.
Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationComputational Models of Argument
Subtitle of host publicationProceedings of COMMA 2008
EditorsPhilippe Besnard, Sylvie Doutre, Anthony Hunter
Place of PublicationAmsterdam
PublisherIOS Press
ISBN (Print)978-1-58603-859-5
Publication statusPublished - 2008

Publication series

NameFrontiers in artificial intelligence and applications
PublisherIOS Press


  • Artificial intelligence -- Computer simulation -- Congresses
  • Reasoning -- Computer simulation -- Congresses


Dive into the research topics of 'Semantics for Evidence-Based Argumentation'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this