×

zbMATH — the first resource for mathematics

Local expansion invariant operators in argumentation semantics. (English) Zbl 07229665
Liao, Beishui (ed.) et al., Dynamics, uncertainty and reasoning. Selected papers of the second Chinese conference on logic and argumentation (CLAR 2018), Hangzhou, China, June 16–17, 2018. Singapore: Springer (ISBN 978-981-13-7790-7/hbk; 978-981-13-7793-8/pbk; 978-981-13-7791-4/ebook). Logic in Asia: Studia Logica Library, 45-62 (2019).
Summary: We study invariant local expansion operators for conflict-free and admissible sets in Abstract Argumentation Frameworks (AFs). Such operators are directly applied on AFs, and are invariant with respect to a chosen ‘semantics’ (that is, w.r.t. each of the conflict-free/admissible sets of arguments). Accordingly, we derive a definition of robustness for AFs in terms of the number of times such operators can be applied without producing any change in the chosen semantics.
For the entire collection see [Zbl 1428.03006].
MSC:
03-06 Proceedings, conferences, collections, etc. pertaining to mathematical logic and foundations
Software:
ConArg2
PDF BibTeX XML Cite
Full Text: DOI
References:
[1] Baroni, P., Giacomin, M., Liao, B.: On topology-related properties of abstract argumentation semantics. A correction and extension to dynamics of argumentation systems: A division-based method. Artif. Intell. 212, 104-115 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2014.03.003 · Zbl 1405.68337
[2] Baumann, R.: Normal and strong expansion equivalence for argumentation frameworks. Artif. Intell. 193, 18-44 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2012.08.004 · Zbl 1270.68280
[3] Baumann, R.: Context-free and context-sensitive kernels: update and deletion equivalence in abstract argumentation. In: Schaub, T., Friedrich, G., O’Sullivan, B. (eds.) 21st European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, ECAI 2014, 18-22 August 2014, Prague, Czech Republic—Including Prestigious Applications of Intelligent Systems (PAIS 2014). Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 263, pp. 63-68. IOS Press (2014). https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-61499-419-0-63 · Zbl 1366.68275
[4] Baumann, R., Brewka, G.: Expanding argumentation frameworks: enforcing and monotonicity results. In: Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA, FAIA, vol. 216, pp. 75-86. IOS Press (2010)
[5] Bistarelli, S., Faloci, F., Santini, F., Taticchi, C.: Studying dynamics in argumentation with rob. In: Modgil, S., Budzynska, K., Lawrence, J. (eds.) Computational Models of Argument—Proceedings of COMMA 2018, Warsaw, Poland, 12-14 September 2018. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 305, pp. 451-452. IOS Press (2018). https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-61499-906-5-451
[6] Bistarelli, S., Pirolandi, D., Santini, F.: Solving weighted argumentation frameworks with soft constraints. In: Larrosa, J., O’Sullivan, B. (eds.) Recent Advances in Constraints—14th Annual ERCIM International Workshop on Constraint Solving and Constraint Logic Programming, CSCLP 2009, Barcelona, Spain, 15-17 June 2009, Revised Selected Papers. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 6384, pp. 1-18. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-19486-3_1 · Zbl 1322.68202
[7] Bistarelli, S., Rossi, F., Santini, F.: Conarg: a tool for classical and weighted argumentation. In: Baroni, P., Gordon, T.F., Scheffler, T., Stede, M. (eds.) Proceedings of Computational Models of Argument, COMMA 2016, Potsdam, Germany, 12-16 September, 2016. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 287, pp. 463-464. IOS Press (2016). https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-61499-686-6-463
[8] Bistarelli, S., Rossi, F., Santini, F.: A novel weighted defence and its relaxation in abstract argumentation. Int. J. Approx. Reason. 92, 66-86 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijar.2017.10.006 · Zbl 1423.68479
[9] Bistarelli, S., Santini, F.: Modeling and solving AFs with a constraint-based tool: ConArg. In: Modgil, S., Oren, N., Toni, F. (eds.) First International Workshop on Theorie and Applications of Formal Argumentation, TAFA 2011. Barcelona, Spain, 16-17 July 2011, Revised Selected Papers. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 7132, pp. 99-116. Springer, Heidelberg (2011).https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-29184-5_7
[10] Bistarelli, S., Santini, F.: Conarg: Argumentation with constraints. In: Ossowski, S., Toni, F., Vouros, G.A. (eds.) Proceedings of the First International Conference on Agreement Technologies, AT 2012, Dubrovnik, Croatia, 15-16 October 2012, CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 918, pp. 197-198. CEUR-WS.org (2012). http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-918/111110197.pdf
[11] Bistarelli, S., Santini, F., Taticchi, C.: On looking for invariant operators in argumentation semantics. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-First International Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society Conference, FLAIRS., pp. 537-540. AAAI Press (2018)
[12] Boella, G., da Costa Pereira, C., Tettamanzi, A., van der Torre, L.W.N.: Making others believe what they want. In: Artificial Intelligence in Theory and Practice II, IFIP 20th World Computer Congress, IFIP, vol. 276, pp. 215-224. Springer, Boston (2008)
[13] Boella, G., Kaci, S., van der Torre, L.W.N.: Dynamics in argumentation with single extensions: abstraction principles and the grounded extension. In: 10th European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty, ECSQARU. LNCS, vol. 5590, pp. 107-118. Springer, Heidelberg (2009a) · Zbl 1245.91015
[14] Boella, G., Kaci, S., van der Torre, L.W.N.: Dynamics in argumentation with single extensions: attack refinement and the grounded extension (extended version). In: 6th International Workshop on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems, ArgMAS. LNCS, vol. 6057, pp. 150-159. Springer, Heidelberg (2009b) · Zbl 1245.91015
[15] Caminada, M.: On the issue of reinstatement in argumentation. In: 10th European Conference on Logics in Artificial Intelligence, JELIA pp. 111-123 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/11853886_11 · Zbl 1152.68600
[16] Cayrol, C., de Saint-Cyr, F.D., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.: Revision of an argumentation system. In: Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, KR, pp. 124-134. AAAI Press (2008) · Zbl 1191.68480
[17] Cayrol, C., de Saint-Cyr, F.D., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.: Change in abstract argumentation frameworks: adding an argument. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 38, 49-84 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1613/jair.2965 · Zbl 1191.68480
[18] Croitoru, C., Kötzing, T.: A normal form for argumentation frameworks. In: Second International Workshop on Theory and Applications of Formal Argumentation, TAFA. LNCS, vol. 8306, pp. 32-45. Springer, Heidelberg (2013) · Zbl 1405.68346
[19] Dix, J., Hansson, S.O., Kern-Isberner, G., Simari, G.R.: Belief change and argumentation in multi-agent scenarios. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 78(3-4), 177-179 (2016) · Zbl 1360.03011
[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(2), 321-358 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1016/0004-3702(94)00041-X · Zbl 1013.68556
[21] Liao, B.S., Jin, L., Koons, R.C.: Dynamics of argumentation systems: a division-based method. Artif. Intell. 175(11), 1790-1814 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2011.03.006 · Zbl 1226.68101
[22] Oikarinen, E., Woltran, S.: Characterizing strong equivalence for argumentation frameworks. Artif. Intell. 175(14-15), 1985-2009 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2011.06.003 · Zbl 1252.68279
[23] Rienstra, T. · Zbl 1335.68282
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.