A general framework for sound assumption-based argumentation dialogues

We propose a formal model for argumentation-based dialogues between agents, using assumption-based argumentation (ABA) as the underlying argumentation framework. Thus, the dialogues amount to conducting an argumentation process in ABA. The model is given in terms of ABA-specific utterances, debate trees and forests implicitly built during and drawn from dialogues, legal-move functions (amounting to protocols) and outcome functions. The model is generic in that it is not restricted to any specific dialogue types and can be used to support a wide range thereof. We prove a formal connection between dialogues and three well-known argumentation semantics (i.e. grounded, admissible and ideal extensions), by giving soundness results for our dialogue models with respect to these semantics. Thus, our dialogues can be seen as a distributed mechanism for successfully determining acceptability of claims (with respect to the semantics considered), while constructing argumentation frameworks and arguments for these claims.