Bipolar abstract argumentation systems

2009 ◽  
pp. 65-84 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claudette Cayrol ◽  
Marie-Christine Lagasquie-Schiex
Keyword(s):  
Abstract Argumentation ◽  
Argumentation Systems

A survey of different approaches to support in argumentation systems

2013 ◽  
Vol 29 (5) ◽  
pp. 513-550 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea Cohen ◽  
Sebastian Gottifredi ◽  
Alejandro J. García ◽  
Guillermo R. Simari
Keyword(s):  
Abstract Argumentation ◽  
Evidential Support ◽  
Similarities And Differences ◽  
Argumentation Systems ◽  
Support Relation ◽  
Comprehensive Study

AbstractIn the last decades, most works in the literature have been devoted to study argumentation formalisms that focus on a defeat relation among arguments. Recently, the study of a support relation between arguments regained attention among researchers; the bulk of the research has been centered on the study of support within the context of abstract argumentation by considering support as an explicit interaction between arguments. However, there exist other approaches that take support into account in a different setting. This article surveys several interpretations of the notion of support as proposed in the literature, such as deductive support, necessary support, evidential support, subargument, and backing, among others. The aim is to provide a comprehensive study where similarities and differences among these interpretations are highlighted, as well as discuss how they are addressed by different argumentation formalisms.

scholarly journals Improved answer-set programming encodings for abstract argumentation

2015 ◽  
Vol 15 (4-5) ◽  
pp. 434-448 ◽  
Author(s):  
SARAH A. GAGGL ◽  
NORBERT MANTHEY ◽  
ALESSANDRO RONCA ◽  
JOHANNES P. WALLNER ◽  
STEFAN WOLTRAN
Keyword(s):  
Answer Set Programming ◽  
Efficient Solutions ◽  
Crucial Step ◽  
Abstract Argumentation ◽  
Argumentation Systems ◽  
Answer Set

AbstractThe design of efficient solutions for abstract argumentation problems is a crucial step towards advanced argumentation systems. One of the most prominent approaches in the literature is to use Answer-Set Programming (ASP) for this endeavor. In this paper, we present new encodings for three prominent argumentation semantics using the concept of conditional literals in disjunctions as provided by the ASP-system clingo. Our new encodings are not only more succinct than previous versions, but also outperform them on standard benchmarks.

scholarly journals Extending abstract argumentation systems theory

2000 ◽  
Vol 120 (2) ◽  
pp. 251-270 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. Baroni ◽  
M. Giacomin ◽  
G. Guida
Keyword(s):  
Systems Theory ◽  
Abstract Argumentation ◽  
Argumentation Systems

scholarly journals Two Sides of the Same Coin: Belief Revision and Enforcing Arguments

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adrian Haret ◽  
Johannes P. Wallner ◽  
Stefan Woltran
Keyword(s):  
Belief Revision ◽  
Propositional Logic ◽  
Belief Change ◽  
Knowledge Bases ◽  
Abstract Argumentation ◽  
Axiomatic Treatment ◽  
Close Relationship ◽  
Representation Result ◽  
Two Sides ◽  
Argumentation Systems

We study a type of change on knowledge bases inspired by the dynamics of formal argumentation systems, where the goal is to enforce acceptance of certain arguments. We put forward that enforcing acceptance of arguments can be viewed as a member of the wider family of belief change operations, and that an axiomatic treatment of it is therefore desirable. In our case, laying down axioms enables a precise account of the close connection between enforcing arguments and belief revision. Our analysis of enforcing arguments proceeds by (i) axiomatizing it as an operation in propositional logic and providing a representation result in terms of rankings on sets of interpretations, (ii) showing that it stands in close relationship to belief revision, and (iii) using it as a gateway towards a principled treatment of enforcement in abstract argumentation.

scholarly journals Abstract argumentation systems

1997 ◽  
Vol 90 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 225-279 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gerard A.W. Vreeswijk
Keyword(s):  
Abstract Argumentation ◽  
Argumentation Systems

scholarly journals Dynamics of knowledge in DeLP through Argument Theory Change

2012 ◽  
Vol 13 (6) ◽  
pp. 893-957 ◽  
Author(s):  
MARTÍN O. MOGUILLANSKY ◽  
NICOLÁS D. ROTSTEIN ◽  
MARCELO A. FALAPPA ◽  
ALEJANDRO J. GARCÍA ◽  
GUILLERMO R. SIMARI
Keyword(s):  
Theory Change ◽  
Knowledge Bases ◽  
Minimal Change ◽  
Logic Programs ◽  
Rule Based ◽  
Defeasible Logic ◽  
Abstract Argumentation ◽  
Revision Operations ◽  
Argumentation Systems ◽  
Article Abstract

AbstractThis article is devoted to the study of methods to change defeasible logic programs (de.l.p.s) which are the knowledge bases used by the Defeasible Logic Programming (DeLP) interpreter. DeLP is an argumentation formalism that allows to reason over potentially inconsistent de.l.p.s. Argument Theory Change (ATC) studies certain aspects of belief revision in order to make them suitable for abstract argumentation systems. In this article, abstract arguments are rendered concrete by using the particular rule-based defeasible logic adopted by DeLP. The objective of our proposal is to define prioritized argument revision operators à la ATC for de.l.p.s, in such a way that the newly inserted argument ends up undefeated after the revision, thus warranting its conclusion. In order to ensure this warrant, the de.l.p. has to be changed in concordance with a minimal change principle. To this end, we discuss different minimal change criteria that could be adopted. Finally, an algorithm is presented, implementing the argument revision operations.

scholarly journals An Efficient Java-Based Solver for Abstract Argumentation Frameworks: jArgSemSAT

2017 ◽  
Vol 26 (02) ◽  
pp. 1750002 ◽  
Author(s):  
Federico Cerutti ◽  
Mauro Vallati ◽  
Massimiliano Giacomin
Keyword(s):  
Computational Complexity ◽  
Web Service ◽  
Computational Models ◽  
State Of The Art ◽  
Legal Reasoning ◽  
Intelligence Analysis ◽  
Abstract Argumentation ◽  
Current State ◽  
In Virtue Of ◽  
Argumentation Systems

Dung’s argumentation frameworks are adopted in a variety of applications, from argument-mining, to intelligence analysis and legal reasoning. Despite this broad spectrum of already existing applications, the mostly adopted solver—in virtue of its simplicity—is far from being comparable to the current state-of-the-art solvers. On the other hand, most of the current state-of-the-art solvers are far too complicated to be deployed in real-world settings. In this paper we provide and extensive description of jArgSemSAT, a Java re-implementation of ArgSemSAT. ArgSemSAT represents the best single solver for argumentation semantics with the highest level of computational complexity. We show that jArgSemSAT can be easily integrated in existing argumentation systems (1) as an off-the-shelf, standalone, library; (2) as a Tweety compatible library; and (3) as a fast and robust web service freely available on the Web. Our large experimental analysis shows that despite being written in Java, jArgSemSAT would have scored in most of the cases among the three bests solvers for the two semantics with highest computational complexity “Stable and Preferred” in the last competition on computational models of argumentation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document