Change in Abstract Bipolar Argumentation Systems

  • Claudette Cayrol
  • Marie-Christine Lagasquie-SchiexEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9310)


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.


Dynamics of bipolar Argumentation Deductive support 


  1. 1.
    Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C.: A reasoning model based on the production of acceptable arguments. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 34, 197–216 (2002)zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.C., Livet, P.: On bipolarity in argumentation frameworks. Intl. J. Intell. Syst. 23, 1062–1093 (2008)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Amgoud, L., Maudet, N., Parsons, S.: Modelling dialogues using argumentation. In: Proceedings of ICMAS, pp. 31–38 (2000)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Amgoud, L., Vesic, S.: A formal analysis of the role of argumentation in negotiation dialogues. J. Logic Comput. 22, 957–978 (2012)zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Baroni, P., Caminada, M., Giacomin, M.: An introduction to argumentation semantics. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 26(4), 365–410 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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)zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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. 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. 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)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 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) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.C.: Bipolarity in argumentation graphs: towards a better understanding. IJAR 54(7), 876–899 (2013)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.C.: Change in abstract bipolar argumentation systems. Technical report RR-2015-02-FR, IRIT (2015).
  16. 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. 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. 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. 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)zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gabbay, D.M.: Logical foundations for bipolar and tripolar argumentation networks: preliminary results. J. Logic Comput. (2013)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Karacapilidis, N., Papadias, D.: Computer supported argumentation and collaborative decision making: the hermes system. Inf. Syst. 26(4), 259–277 (2001)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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. 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) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Oren, N., Norman, T.J.: Semantics for evidence-based argumentation. In: Proceedings of COMMA, pp. 276–284 (2008)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Oren, N., Reed, C., Luck, M.: Moving between argumentation frameworks. In: Proceedings of COMMA, pp. 379–390. IOS Press (2010)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Polberg, S., Oren, N.: Revisiting support in abstract argumentation systems. In: Proceedings of COMMA, pp. 369–376. IOS Press (2014)Google Scholar
  28. 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. 29.
    Verheij, B.: Deflog: on the logical interpretation of prima facie justified assumptions. J. Logic Comput. 13, 319–346 (2003)zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Claudette Cayrol
    • 1
  • Marie-Christine Lagasquie-Schiex
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.IRIT-UPSToulouseFrance

Personalised recommendations