Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Change in Abstract Bipolar Argumentation Systems

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Book cover Scalable Uncertainty Management (SUM 2015)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 9310))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

An argumentation system can undergo changes (addition or removal of arguments/interactions), particularly in multiagent systems. In this paper, we are interested in dynamics of abstract bipolar argumentation systems, i.e. argumentation systems using two kinds of interaction: attacks and supports. We propose change characterizations that use and extend previous results defined in the case of Dung abstract argumentation systems.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See for instance [7, 8, 11, 17, 18].

  2. 2.

    It generalizes mediated, supported and also the “super-mediated attack” defined in [14].

  3. 3.

    Other works could be considered for addressing the issue of incremental computation in a dynamic context. [5] for instance presents a more general approach dealing with modularity in abstract argumentation, based on the partition of an argumentation framework in interacting subframeworks. However, the application to our purpose is not straightforward and requires further investigation.

  4. 4.

    Let S be a set, |S| denotes the cardinality of S.

  5. 5.

    A second case, referred as “monotony from \({\mathcal {G}}'\) to \({\mathcal {G}}\)”, has been described in [9]. It is not used in this paper.

  6. 6.

    This property is described in [8] and only considers the status of an argument after the change without taking into account the evolution of extensions. Of course, many other possibilities could be defined (e.g. combining extensiveness and monotony).

  7. 7.

    In this case, \({\mathsf{BAS}}\) is reduced to an AS. So \({\mathsf{BAS}}\), its reduction \({\mathsf{AS}}\) and \({\mathsf{AS}^{\mathsf{BAS}}}\) collapse.

References

  1. Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C.: A reasoning model based on the production of acceptable arguments. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 34, 197–216 (2002)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  2. Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.C., Livet, P.: On bipolarity in argumentation frameworks. Intl. J. Intell. Syst. 23, 1062–1093 (2008)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Amgoud, L., Maudet, N., Parsons, S.: Modelling dialogues using argumentation. In: Proceedings of ICMAS, pp. 31–38 (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Amgoud, L., Vesic, S.: A formal analysis of the role of argumentation in negotiation dialogues. J. Logic Comput. 22, 957–978 (2012)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. Baroni, P., Boella, G., Cerutti, F., Giacomin, M., van der Torre, L., Villata, S.: On the input/output behavior of argumentation frameworks. Artif. Intell. 217, 144–197 (2014)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Baroni, P., Caminada, M., Giacomin, M.: An introduction to argumentation semantics. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 26(4), 365–410 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 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)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  8. Baumann, R.: What does it take to enforce an argument? Minimal change in abstract argumentation. In: Proceedings of ECAI, pp. 127–132. IOS Press (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bisquert, P., Cayrol, C., Dupin de Saint Cyr Bannay, F., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.C.: Characterizing change in abstract argumentation systems. In: Ferm, E., Gabbay, D., Simari, G. (eds.) Trends in Belief Revision and Argumentation Dynamics. Studies in Logic, vol. 48, pp. 75–102. College Publications (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Boella, G., Gabbay, D.M., van der Torre, L., Villata, S.: Modelling defeasible and prioritized support in bipolar argumentation. Ann. Math. AI 66, 163–197 (2012)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Booth, R., Kaci, S., Rienstra, T., van der Torre, L.: A logical theory about dynamics in abstract argumentation. In: Liu, W., Subrahmanian, V.S., Wijsen, J. (eds.) SUM 2013. LNCS, vol. 8078, pp. 148–161. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  12. Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.C.: On the acceptability of arguments in bipolar argumentation frameworks. In: Godo, L. (ed.) ECSQARU 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3571, pp. 378–389. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.C.: Coalitions of arguments: a tool for handling bipolar argumentation frameworks. Intl. J. Intell. Syst. 25, 83–109 (2010)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.C.: Bipolarity in argumentation graphs: towards a better understanding. IJAR 54(7), 876–899 (2013)

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  15. Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.C.: Change in abstract bipolar argumentation systems. Technical report RR-2015-02-FR, IRIT (2015). http://www.irit.fr/publis/ADRIA/PapersMCL/Rapport-IRIT-2015-02.pdf

  16. Cohen, A., Gottifredi, S., García, A.J., Simari, G.R.: An approach to abstract argumentation with recursive attack and support. J. Appl. Logic (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Coste-Marquis, S., Konieczny, S., Mailly, J.-G., Marquis, P.: A translation-based approach for revision of argumentation frameworks. In: Fermé, E., Leite, J. (eds.) JELIA 2014. LNCS, vol. 8761, pp. 397–411. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Doutre, S., Herzig, A., Perrussel, L.: A dynamic logic framework for abstractargumentation. In: Proceedings of KR, pp. 62–71. AAAI Press (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif. Intell. 77, 321–357 (1995)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  20. Gabbay, D.M.: Logical foundations for bipolar and tripolar argumentation networks: preliminary results. J. Logic Comput. (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Karacapilidis, N., Papadias, D.: Computer supported argumentation and collaborative decision making: the hermes system. Inf. Syst. 26(4), 259–277 (2001)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  22. Nouioua, F.: AFs with necessities: further semantics and labelling characterization. In: Liu, W., Subrahmanian, V.S., Wijsen, J. (eds.) SUM 2013. LNCS, vol. 8078, pp. 120–133. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  23. Nouioua, F., Risch, V.: Bipolar argumentation frameworks with specialized supports. In: Proceedings of ICTAI, pp. 215–218. IEEE Computer Society (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Nouioua, F., Risch, V.: Argumentation frameworks with necessities. In: Benferhat, S., Grant, J. (eds.) SUM 2011. LNCS, vol. 6929, pp. 163–176. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  25. Oren, N., Norman, T.J.: Semantics for evidence-based argumentation. In: Proceedings of COMMA, pp. 276–284 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Oren, N., Reed, C., Luck, M.: Moving between argumentation frameworks. In: Proceedings of COMMA, pp. 379–390. IOS Press (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Polberg, S., Oren, N.: Revisiting support in abstract argumentation systems. In: Proceedings of COMMA, pp. 369–376. IOS Press (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Prakken, H.: On support relations in abstract argumentation as abstraction of inferential relations. In: Proceedings of ECAI, pp. 735–740 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Verheij, B.: Deflog: on the logical interpretation of prima facie justified assumptions. J. Logic Comput. 13, 319–346 (2003)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. IRIT-UPS, Toulouse, France

    Claudette Cayrol & Marie-Christine Lagasquie-Schiex

Authors
  1. Claudette Cayrol
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marie-Christine Lagasquie-Schiex
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marie-Christine Lagasquie-Schiex .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Fakultät für Mathematik und Informatik, FernUniversität in Hagen, Hagen, Germany

    Christoph Beierle

  2. California Polytechnic State University, SAN LUIS OBISPO, USA

    Alex Dekhtyar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this paper

Cite this paper

Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, MC. (2015). Change in Abstract Bipolar Argumentation Systems. In: Beierle, C., Dekhtyar, A. (eds) Scalable Uncertainty Management. SUM 2015. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 9310. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23540-0_21

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23540-0_21

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-23539-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-23540-0

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation