×

Modelling defeasible and prioritized support in bipolar argumentation. (English) Zbl 1280.68255

Summary: Cayrol and Lagasquie-Schiex introduce bipolar argumentation frameworks by introducing a second relation on the arguments for representing the support among them. The main drawback of their approach is that they cannot encode defeasible support, for instance they cannot model an attack towards a support relation. In this paper, we introduce a way to model defeasible support in bipolar argumentation frameworks. We use the methodology of meta-argumentation in which Dung’s theory is used to reason about itself. Dung’s well-known admissibility semantics can be used on this meta-argumentation framework to compute the acceptable arguments, and all properties of Dung’s classical theory are preserved. Moreover, we show how different contexts can lead to the alternative strengthening of the support relation over the attack relation, and converse. Finally, we present two applications of our methodology for modeling support, the case of arguments provided with an internal structure and the case of abstract dialectical frameworks.

MSC:

68T30 Knowledge representation
68T37 Reasoning under uncertainty in the context of artificial intelligence
68T42 Agent technology and artificial intelligence

Software:

AFRA
PDF BibTeX XML Cite
Full Text: DOI Link

References:

[1] Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.C., Livet, P.: On bipolarity in argumentation frameworks. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 23(10), 1062–1093 (2008) · Zbl 1151.68049
[2] Bagheri, E., Ensan, F.: Consolidating multiple requirement specifications through argumentation. In: Procs of the 2011 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC 2011), pp. 659–666 (2011)
[3] Barringer, H., Gabbay, D., Woods, J.: Temporal dynamics of argumentation networks. In: Volume Dedicated to Siekmann, J., Hutter, D., Stephan, W. (eds.) Mechanising Mathematical Reasoning. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2605, pp. 59–98. Springer (2005) · Zbl 1098.68122
[4] Barringer, H., Gabbay, D.,Woods, J.: Temporal, numerical and metalevel dynamics in argumentation networks. Argument and Computation 3(2–3), 143–202 (2012)
[5] Baroni, P., Cerutti, F., Giacomin, M., Guida, G.: Encompassing attacks to attacks in abstract argumentation frameworks. In: Sossai, C., Chemello, G. (eds.) ECSQARU. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5590, pp. 83–94. Springer (2009) · Zbl 1203.68198
[6] Boella, G., van der Torre, L., Villata, S.: Social viewpoints for arguing about coalitions. In: Bui, T.D., Ho, T.V., Ha, Q.T. (eds.) PRIMA. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5357, pp. 66–77. Springer (2008)
[7] Boella, G., Gabbay, D.M., van der Torre, L., Villata, S.: Meta-argumentation modelling i: methodology and techniques. Stud. Log. 93(2–3), 297–355 (2009) · Zbl 1185.68664
[8] Boella, G., van der Torre, L., Villata, S.: On the acceptability of meta-arguments. In: Proc. of the 2009 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Intelligent Agent Technology (IAT 2009), pp. 259–262. IEEE (2009)
[9] Boella, G., van der Torre, L., Villata, S.: Analyzing cooperation in iterative social network design. J. Univers. Comput. Sci. 15(13), 2676–2700 (2009) · Zbl 1217.91161
[10] Boella, G., Gabbay, D.M., van der Torre, L., Villata, S.: Support in abstract argumentation. In: Third International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2010), Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 216, pp. 111–122 (2010)
[11] Brewka, G., Woltran, S.: Abstract dialectical frameworks. In: Proc. of the 20th International Conference on the Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2010), pp. 102–111 (2010)
[12] Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.C.: On the acceptability of arguments in bipolar argumentation frameworks. In: Godo, L. (ed.) ECSQARU. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3571, pp. 378–389. Springer (2005) · Zbl 1122.68639
[13] Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.C.: Coalitions of arguments: a tool for handling bipolar argumentation frameworks. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 25(1), 83–109 (2010) · Zbl 1185.68704
[14] Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.C.: Bipolarity in argumentation graphs: towards a better understanding. In: Proc. of the 5th International Conference on Scalable Uncertainty Management (SUM 2011). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 6929, pp. 137–148. Springer (2011) · Zbl 1316.68152
[15] Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif. Intell. 77(2), 321–358 (1995) · Zbl 1013.68556
[16] Gabbay, D.M.: Fibring argumentation frames. Stud. Log. 93(2–3), 231–295 (2009) · Zbl 1185.68670
[17] Gabbay, D.M.: Semantics for higher level attacks in extended argumentation frames. Part 1: overview. Stud. Log. 93, 355–379 (2009)
[18] Gabbay, D.M., Barringer, H., Woods, J.: Network modalities. In: Gross, G., Schulz, K.U. (eds.) Linguistics, Computer Science and Language Processing, Festschrift for Franz Guenthner on the Occasion of his 60th Birthday, pp. 79–102. College Publications (2008) · Zbl 1269.03024
[19] Modgil, S.: An abstract theory of argumentation that accommodates defeasible reasoning about preferences. In: Proc. of Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty, 9th European Conference (ECSQARU 2007). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4724, pp. 648–659. Springer (2007) · Zbl 1148.68530
[20] Modgil, S., Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Integrating object and meta-level value based argumentation. In: Besnard, P., Doutre, S., Hunter, A. (eds.) COMMA. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 172, pp. 240–251. IOS Press (2008)
[21] Modgil, S., Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Metalevel argumentation. J. Log. Comput. 21(6), 959–1003 (2011) · Zbl 1228.68047
[22] Oren, N., Reed, C., Luck, M.: Moving between argumentation frameworks. In: Third International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2010). Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 216, pp. 379–390 (2010)
[23] Pollock, J.L.: Rational cognition in OSCAR. In: Proc. of the 6th International Workshop on Intelligent Agents VI, Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages (ATAL 1999). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1757, pp. 71–90. Springer (1999) · Zbl 0970.68669
[24] Prakken, H.: A logical framework for modelling legal argument. In: Proc. of the 4th Int. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence and Law, ICAIL, pp. 1–9. ACM (1993) · Zbl 0866.03018
[25] Prakken, H.: An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. Technical Report UU-CS-2009-019, Department of Information and Computing Sciences, Utrecht University (2009)
[26] Rowe, G., Reed, C.: Translating Wigmore diagrams. In: Proceedings of COMMA 2006. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, pp. 171–182. IOS Press (2006)
[27] Toulmin, S.: The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press (1958)
[28] Villata, S., Boella, G., Gabbay, D.M., van der Torre, L.: Arguing about the trustworthiness of the information sources. In: Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty–11th European Conference (ECSQARU 2011). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 6717, pp. 74–85. Springer (2011) · Zbl 1341.68271
[29] Wigmore, J.H.: The Principles of Judicial Proof, 2nd edn. Little, Brown & Co. (1931)
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.