AFRA: argumentation framework with recursive attacks. (English) Zbl 1211.68433

Summary: The issue of representing attacks to attacks in argumentation is receiving an increasing attention as a useful conceptual modelling tool in several contexts. In this paper we present AFRA, a formalism encompassing unlimited recursive attacks within argumentation frameworks. AFRA satisfies the basic requirements of definition simplicity and rigorous compatibility with Dung’s theory of argumentation. This paper provides a complete development of the AFRA formalism complemented by illustrative examples and a detailed comparison with other recursive attack formalizations.


68T37 Reasoning under uncertainty in the context of artificial intelligence


Full Text: DOI arXiv Link


[1] Dung, P.M., On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming, and n-person games, Artificial intelligence, 77, 2, 321-357, (1995) · Zbl 1013.68556
[2] Amgoud, L.; Cayrol, C., A reasoning model based on the production of acceptable arguments, Annals of mathematics and artificial intelligence, 34, 197-216, (2002) · Zbl 1002.68172
[3] Amgoud, L.; Kaci, S., An argumentation framework for merging conflicting knowledge bases, International journal of approximate reasoning, 45, 321-340, (2007) · Zbl 1122.68116
[4] Bench-Capon, T.J.M., Persuasion in practical argument using value based argumentation frameworks, Journal of logic and computation, 13, 3, 429-448, (2003) · Zbl 1043.03026
[5] Kaci, S.; van der Torre, L., Preference-based argumentation: arguments supporting multiple values, International journal of approximate reasoning, 48, 730-751, (2007) · Zbl 1184.68512
[6] Amgoud, L.; Cayrol, C.; Lagasquie-Schiex, M.-C.; Livet, P., On bipolarity in argumentation frameworks, International journal of intelligent systems, 23, 1062-1093, (2008) · Zbl 1151.68049
[7] Cayrol, C.; Lagasquie-Schiex, M.-C., Coalitions of arguments: a tool for handling bipolar argumentation frameworks, International journal of intelligent systems, 25, 1, 83-109, (2010) · Zbl 1185.68704
[8] P.E. Dunne, A. Hunter, P. McBurney, S. Parsons, M. Wooldridge, Inconsistency tolerance in weighted argument systems, in: AAMAS ’09: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, Richland, SC, 2009, pp. 851-858.
[9] Modgil, S., An abstract theory of argumentation that accommodates defeasible reasoning about preferences, (), 648-659 · Zbl 1148.68530
[10] Modgil, S.; Bench-Capon, T.J.M., Integrating object and meta-level value based argumentation, (), 240-251
[11] Modgil, S., Reasoning about preferences in argumentation frameworks, Artificial intelligence, 173, 9-10, 901-934, (2009) · Zbl 1192.68663
[12] Baroni, P.; Giacomin, M., Semantics of abstract argumentation systems, (), 25-44
[13] Baroni, P.; Giacomin, M., On principle-based evaluation of extension-based argumentation semantics, Artificial intelligence (special issue on argumentation in A.I.), 171, 10/15, 675-700, (2007) · Zbl 1168.68559
[14] Baroni, P.; Giacomin, M., Skepticism relations for comparing argumentation semantics, International journal of approximate reasoning, 50, 6, 854-866, (2009) · Zbl 1191.68671
[15] Boella, G.; van der Torre, L.; Villata, S., Social viewpoints for arguing about coalitions, (), 66-77
[16] Boella, G.; van der Torre, L.; Villata, S., Attack relations among dynamic coalitions, (), 25-32
[17] Barringer, H.; Gabbay, D.M.; Woods, J.V., Temporal dynamics of support and attack networks: from argumentation to zoology, (), 59-98 · Zbl 1098.68122
[18] Caminada, M., Semi-stable semantics, (), 121-130
[19] Dung, P.; Mancarella, P.; Toni, F., A dialectic procedure for sceptical assumption-based argumentation, (), 145-156
[20] Baroni, P.; Cerutti, F.; Giacomin, M.; Guida, G., Encompassing attacks to attacks in abstract argumentation frameworks, (), 83-94 · Zbl 1203.68198
[21] M. Wooldridge, P. McBurney, S. Parsons, On the meta-logic of arguments, in: Proceedings of the Fourth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS ’05), Utrecht, NL, 2005, pp. 560-567. · Zbl 1236.68270
[22] Boella, G.; Gabbay, D.M.; van der Torre, L.V.S., Meta-argumentation modelling I: methodology and techniques, Studia logica, 93, 2/3, 297-355, (2009) · Zbl 1185.68664
[23] Gabbay, D., Semantics for higher level attacks in extended argumentation frames. part 1: overview, Studia logica, 93, 2/3, 357-381, (2009) · Zbl 1185.68669
[24] Gabbay, D., Fibring argumentation frames, Studia logica, 93, 2/3, 231-295, (2009) · Zbl 1185.68670
[25] U. Egly, S.A. Gaggl, S. Woltran, Answer-set programming encodings for argumentation frameworks, Technical Report DBAI-TR-2008-62, Technische Universität Wien, 2008. · Zbl 1226.68018
[26] Egly, U.; Gaggl, S.A.; Woltran, S., Aspartix: implementing argumentation frameworks using answer-set programming, (), 734-738
[27] Bench-Capon, T.J.M.; Doutre, S.; Dunne, P.E., Audiences in argumentation frameworks, Artificial intelligence, 171, 1, 42-71, (2007) · Zbl 1168.68561
[28] P. Baroni, F. Cerutti, M. Giacomin, G. Guida, An argumentation-based approach to modeling decision support contexts with what-if capabilities, in: AAAI Fall Symposium Series - The Uses of Computational Argumentation, AAAI, 2009, pp. 2-7.
This reference list is based on information provided by the publisher or from digital mathematics libraries. Its items are heuristically matched to zbMATH identifiers and may contain data conversion errors. It attempts to reflect the references listed in the original paper as accurately as possible without claiming the completeness or perfect precision of the matching.