ملخص: We present two dialectic procedures for the sceptical ideal semantics for argumentation. The first procedure is defined in terms of dispute trees, for abstract argumentation frameworks. The second procedure is defined in dialectical terms, for assumptionbased argumentation frameworks. The procedures are adapted from (variants of) corresponding procedures for computing the credulous admissible semantics for assumption-based argumentation, proposed in [P.M. Dung, R.A. Kowalski, F. Toni, Dialectic proof procedures for assumption-based, admissible argumentation, Artificial Intelligence 170 (2006) 114–159]. We prove that the first procedure is sound and complete, and the second procedure is sound in general and complete for a special but natural class of assumption-based argumentation frameworks, that we refer to as p-acyclic. We also prove that in the case of p-acyclic assumptionbased argumentation frameworks (a variant of) the procedure of [P.M. Dung, R.A. Kowalski, F. Toni, Dialectic proof procedures for assumption-based, admissible argumentation, Artificial Intelligence 170 (2006) 114–159] for the admissible semantics is complete. Finally, we present a variant of the procedure of [P.M. Dung, R.A. Kowalski, F. Toni, Dialectic proof procedures for assumptionbased, admissible argumentation, Artificial Intelligence 170 (2006) 114–159] that is sound for the sceptical grounded semantics. © 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

لغة: إنجليزية