×

An approach to abstract argumentation with recursive attack and support. (English) Zbl 1386.68156

Summary: This work introduces the Attack-Support Argumentation Framework (ASAF), an approach to abstract argumentation that allows for the representation and combination of attack and support relations. This framework extends the Argumen-tation Framework with Recursive Attacks (AFRA) in two ways. Firstly, it adds a support relation enabling to express support for arguments; this support can also be given to attacks, and to the support relation itself. Secondly, it extends AFRA’s attack relation by allowing attacks to the aforementioned support relation. Moreover, since the support relation of the ASAF has a necessity interpretation, the ASAF also extends the Argumentation Framework with Necessities (AFN). Thus, the ASAF provides a unified framework for representing attack and support for arguments, as well as attack and support for the attack and support relations at any level.

MSC:

68T27 Logic in artificial intelligence
68T37 Reasoning under uncertainty in the context of artificial intelligence

Software:

AFRA
PDF BibTeX XML Cite
Full Text: DOI

References:

[1] Amgoud, L.; Cayrol, C.; Lagasquie-Schiex, M. C., On the bipolarity in argumentation frameworks, (10th International Workshop on Non-monotonic Reasoning, (2004), Pacific Institute for the Mathematical Sciences, KR Inc. Whistler, Canada), 1-9 · Zbl 1151.68049
[2] Amgoud, L.; Maudet, N.; Parsons, S., An argumentation-based semantics for agent communication languages, (15th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Lyon, France, (2002), IOS Press Amsterdam, NL), 38-42
[3] Amgoud, L.; Parsons, S.; Maudet, N., Arguments, dialogue, and negotiation, (14th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Berlin, Germany, (2000), IOS Press Amsterdam, NL), 338-342
[4] Baroni, P.; Cerutti, F.; Giacomin, M.; Guida, G., Encompassing attacks to attacks in abstract argumentation frameworks, (10th European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty, Verona, Italy, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, vol. 5590, (2009), Springer Germany), 83-94 · Zbl 1203.68198
[5] Baroni, P.; Cerutti, F.; Giacomin, M.; Guida, G., AFRA: argumentation framework with recursive attacks, Int. J. Approx. Reason., 52, 19-37, (2011) · Zbl 1211.68433
[6] Bench-Capon, T. J.M.; Dunne, P. E., Argumentation in artificial intelligence, Artif. Intell., 171, 619-641, (2007) · Zbl 1168.68560
[7] Besnard, P.; Hunter, A., A logic-based theory of deductive arguments, Artif. Intell., 128, 203-235, (2001) · Zbl 0971.68143
[8] Besnard, P.; Hunter, A., Elements of argumentation, (2008), MIT Press Cambridge, MA
[9] Black, E.; Hunter, A., An inquiry dialogue system, Auton. Agents Multi-Agent Syst., 19, 173-209, (2009)
[10] Boella, G.; Gabbay, D. M.; van der Torre, L. W.N.; Villata, S., Support in abstract argumentation, (Baroni, P.; Cerutti, F.; Giacomin, M.; Simari, G. R., 3rd International Conference on Computational Models of Argument, Desenzano del Garda Italy, (2010), IOS Press Amsterdam, NL), 111-122
[11] (Bond, A. H.; Gasser, L., Readings in Distributed Artificial Intelligence, (1988), Morgan Kaufmann Publishers San Mateo, CA)
[12] Boudhar, I.; Nouioua, F.; Risch, V., Handling preferences in argumentation frameworks with necessities, (4th International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence, Vilamoura Portugal, (2012), Springer Berlin), 340-345
[13] Brewka, G.; Strass, H.; Ellmauthaler, S.; Wallner, J. P.; Woltran, S., Abstract dialectical frameworks revisited, (IJCAI, (2013))
[14] Brewka, G.; Woltran, S., Abstract dialectical frameworks, (12th International Conference on the Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, Toronto, Canada, (2010), AAAI Press Menlo Park, CA), 102-111
[15] Caminada, M., Semi-stable semantics, (Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2006, Liverpool, UK, September 11-12, (2006)), 121-130
[16] Cayrol, C.; Lagasquie-Schiex, M. C., On the acceptability of arguments in bipolar argumentation frameworks, (8th European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty, Barcelona, Spain, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, vol. 3571, (2005), Springer Germany), 378-389 · Zbl 1122.68639
[17] Cohen, A.; García, A. J.; Simari, G. R., Backing and undercutting in abstract argumentation frameworks, (7th International Symposium on Foundations of Information and Knowledge Systems, Kiel, Germany, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, vol. 7153, (2012), Springer Germany), 107-123
[18] Cohen, A.; Gottifredi, S.; García, A. J.; Simari, G. R., Recursive attack and support in abstract argumentation frameworks, (Working Papers of the IJCAI-2013 Workshop on Weighted Logics for Artificial Intelligence, Beijing, China, (2013)), 42-49
[19] Cohen, A.; Gottifredi, S.; García, A. J.; Simari, G. R., A survey of different approaches to support in argumentation systems, Knowl. Eng. Rev., 29, 513-550, (2014)
[20] Dung, P. M., On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games, Artif. Intell., 77, 321-358, (1995) · Zbl 1013.68556
[21] Dung, P. M.; Mancarella, P.; Toni, F., Computing ideal sceptical argumentation, Artif. Intell., 171, 642-674, (2007) · Zbl 1168.68564
[22] García, A. J.; Simari, G. R., Defeasible logic programming: an argumentative approach, Theory Pract. Log. Program., 4, 95-138, (2004) · Zbl 1090.68015
[23] Hanh, D. D.; Dung, P. M.; Hung, N. D.; Thang, P. M., Inductive defense for sceptical semantics of extended argumentation, J. Log. Comput., 21, 307-349, (2011) · Zbl 1214.68383
[24] Modgil, S., Reasoning about preferences in argumentation frameworks, Artif. Intell., 173, 901-934, (2009) · Zbl 1192.68663
[25] Nouioua, F.; Risch, V., Bipolar argumentation frameworks with specialized supports, (22th IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence, Arras, France, (2010), IEEE Press Washington DC, USA), 215-218
[26] Nouioua, F.; Risch, V., Argumentation frameworks with necessities, (5th International Conference on Scalable Uncertainty Management, Belfast, UK, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, vol. 6717, (2011), Springer Germany), 163-176
[27] Oren, N.; Norman, T. J., Semantics for evidence-based argumentation, (Besnard, P.; Doutre, S.; Hunter, A., 2nd International Conference on Computational Models of Argument, Toulouse, France, (2008), IOS Press Amsterdam, NL), 276-284
[28] Parsons, S.; Sierra, C.; Jennings, N. R., Agents that reason and negotiate by arguing, J. Log. Comput., 8, 261-292, (1998) · Zbl 0904.68061
[29] Rahwan, I.; Simari, G. R., Argumentation in artificial intelligence, (2009), Springer Heidelberg, Germany
[30] Toulmin, S. E., The uses of argument, (1958), Cambridge University Press Cambridge, UK
[31] Verheij, B., Deflog: on the logical interpretation of prima facie justified assumptions, J. Log. Comput., 13, 319-346, (2003) · Zbl 1032.03507
[32] Villata, S.; Boella, G.; Gabbay, D. M.; van der Torre, L., Modelling defeasible and prioritized support in bipolar argumentation, Ann. Math. Artif. Intell., 66, 163-197, (2012) · Zbl 1280.68255
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.