Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Semantic Change and Extension Enforcement in Abstract Argumentation

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Book cover Scalable Uncertainty Management (SUM 2017)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 10564))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Change in argumentation frameworks has been widely studied in the recent years. Most of the existing works on this topic are concerned with change of the structure of the argumentation graph (addition or removal of arguments and attacks), or change of the outcome of the framework (acceptance statuses of arguments). Change on the acceptability semantics that is used in the framework has not received much attention so far. Such a change can be motivated by different reasons, especially it is a way to change the outcome of the framework. In this paper, it is shown how semantic change can be used as a way to reach a goal about acceptance statuses in a situation of extension enforcement.

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.

    This function is called characteristic function by [22]. We call it defense function to avoid confusion with the characteristics from [5].

  2. 2.

    The Hamming distance between two graphs \(F_1 = \langle A_1, R_1 \rangle \) and \(F_2 = \langle A_2, R_2 \rangle \) is the cardinality of the symmetric difference between \(R_1\) and \(R_2\); in other words, in the present case, it is the number of attacks that it is necessary to add/remove from one graph to get the other.

  3. 3.

    Since here \(\mathcal {F},\mathcal {F}'\) are singletons, the Hamming distance between graphs can be directly used. For other kinds of change operators, it should be generalized to multisets.

  4. 4.

    Pakota also provides the possibility to execute enforcement under the preferred semantics. Because of the higher complexity of the enforcement problem under the preferred semantics, our experiment has encountered a high number of timeouts. For this reason, we exclude preferred semantics of our empirical analysis for now.

  5. 5.

    A complete description and analysis of our experiments, including the instances, the enforcement system, and the curves for every value of |A| and every pair \((\sigma _1,\sigma _2)\) is available online: http://www.math-info.univ-paris5.fr/~jmailly/expSemChange.

References

  1. Amgoud, L., Ben-Naim, J.: Ranking-based semantics for argumentation frameworks. In: Liu, W., Subrahmanian, V.S., Wijsen, J. (eds.) SUM 2013. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 8078, pp. 134–147. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-40381-1_11

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Baroni, P., Giacomin, M.: Skepticism relations for comparing argumentation semantics. Int. J. Approx. Reason. 50(6), 854–866 (2009)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Baroni, P., Giacomin, M., Guida, G.: SCC-recursiveness: a general schema for argumentation semantics. Artif. Intell. 168, 162–210 (2005)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  6. Baumann, R., Brewka, G.: Expanding argumentation frameworks: enforcing and monotonicity results. In: Proceedings of COMMA 2010, pp. 75–86 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bisquert, P., Cayrol, C., Saint-Cyr, F.D., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.-C.: Change in argumentation systems: exploring the interest of removing an argument. In: Benferhat, S., Grant, J. (eds.) SUM 2011. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 6929, pp. 275–288. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-23963-2_22

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. Bisquert, P., Croitoru, M., Dupin de Saint-Cyr, F.: Four ways to evaluate arguments according to agent engagement. In: Guo, Y., Friston, K., Aldo, F., Hill, S., Peng, H. (eds.) BIH 2015. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 9250, pp. 445–456. Springer, Cham (2015). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-23344-4_43

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  9. Bisquert, P., Croitoru, M., Saint-Cyr, F.D.: Towards a dual process cognitive model for argument evaluation. In: Beierle, C., Dekhtyar, A. (eds.) SUM 2015. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 9310, pp. 298–313. Springer, Cham (2015). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-23540-0_20

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  10. Boella, G., Kaci, S., van der Torre, L.: Dynamics in argumentation with single extensions: attack refinement and the grounded extension (Extended Version). In: McBurney, P., Rahwan, I., Parsons, S., Maudet, N. (eds.) ArgMAS 2009. LNCS, vol. 6057, pp. 150–159. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-12805-9_9

    Chapter  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). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-40381-1_12

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  12. Cayrol, C., Dupin de Saint-Cyr, F., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.C.: Change in abstract argumentation frameworks: adding an argument. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 38, 49–84 (2010)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Cerutti, F., Giacomin, M., Vallati, M.: Generating structured argumentation frameworks: AFBenchGen2. In: Proceedings of COMMA 2016, pp. 467–468 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Coste-Marquis, S., Devred, C., Marquis, P.: Prudent semantics for argumentation frameworks. In: Proceedings of ICTAI 2005, pp. 568–572 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Coste-Marquis, S., Konieczny, S., Mailly, J.G., Marquis, P.: On the revision of argumentation systems: minimal change of arguments statuses. In: Proceedings of KR 2014 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  16. 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, Cham (2014). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-11558-0_28

    Google Scholar 

  17. Coste-Marquis, S., Konieczny, S., Mailly, J.G., Marquis, P.: Extension enforcement in abstract argumentation as an optimization problem. In: Proceedings of IJCAI 2015 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Delobelle, J., Haret, A., Konieczny, S., Mailly, J.G., Rossit, J., Woltran, S.: Merging of abstract argumentation frameworks. In: Proceedings of KR 2016, pp. 33–42 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Doutre, S., Herzig, A., Perrussel, L.: A dynamic logic framework for abstract argumentation. In: Proceedings of KR 2014, pp. 62–71 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Doutre, S., Mailly, J.G.: Quantifying the difference between argumentation semantics. In: Proceedings of COMMA 2016 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Dung, P.M., Mancarella, P., Toni, F.: Computing ideal sceptical argumentation. Artif. Intell. 171(10–15), 642–674 (2007)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  22. 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), 321–357 (1995)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  23. Dvorák, W., Spanring, C.: Comparing the expressiveness of argumentation semantics. In: Proceedings of COMMA 2012, pp. 261–272 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Erdös, P., Rényi, A.: On random graphs I. Publicationes Mathematicae, pp. 290–297 (1959)

    Google Scholar 

  25. de Saint-Cyr, F.D., Bisquert, P., Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.: Argumentation update in YALLA (yet another logic language for argumentation). Int. J. Approx. Reason. 75, 57–92 (2016)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  26. Wallner, J.P., Niskanen, A., Järvisalo, M.: Complexity results and algorithms for extension enforcement in abstract argumentation. In: Proceedings of AAAI 2016, pp. 1088–1094 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. IRIT, Université Toulouse 1 Capitole, Toulouse, France

    Sylvie Doutre

  2. LIPADE, Université Paris Descartes, Paris, France

    Jean-Guy Mailly

Authors
  1. Sylvie Doutre
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jean-Guy Mailly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jean-Guy Mailly .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Granada, Granada, Spain

    Serafín Moral

  2. University of Rennes I, Lannion, France

    Olivier Pivert

  3. University of Granada, Granada, Spain

    Daniel Sánchez

  4. University of Granada, Granada, Spain

    Nicolás Marín

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this paper

Cite this paper

Doutre, S., Mailly, JG. (2017). Semantic Change and Extension Enforcement in Abstract Argumentation. In: Moral, S., Pivert, O., Sánchez, D., Marín, N. (eds) Scalable Uncertainty Management. SUM 2017. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 10564. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67582-4_14

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67582-4_14

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-67581-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-67582-4

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation