Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks with Specialized Supports

Nouioua, Farid; Risch, Vincent

doi:10.1109/ictai.2010.37

Cited by 35 publications

(58 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Necessary support [21,22], is intended to capture the following intuition: If aR sup b then the acceptance of a is necessary to get the acceptance of b, or equivalently the acceptance of b implies the acceptance of a.…”

Section: Modelling Various Kinds Of Supportmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This example has been inspired from [21] (and also from a variant in [20]). Let us consider the following knowledge: Obtaining a Bachelor's degree with honors (bh) supports obtaining a scholarship (sch) and suppose that having at least one bad mark (bm) does not allow to obtain the honors (even if the average of marks normally allows it).…”

Section: Modelling Various Kinds Of Supportmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Note that this constraint has been considered in [21], where it was called extended attack. Moreover, another kind of complex attack can be justified: If cR sup a and cR att b, the acceptance of a implies the acceptance of c and the acceptance of c implies the non-acceptance of b.…”

Section: Necessary Supportsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Bipolarity in Argumentation Graphs: Towards a Better Understanding

Cayrol

Lagasquie-Schiex

2011

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

134

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

OATAO is an open access repository that collects the work of Toulouse researchers and makes it freely available over the web where possible. Any correspondance concerning this service should be sent to the repository administrator: staff-oatao@listes-diff.inp-toulouse.fr Bipolarity in argumentation graphs: Towards a better understanding Claudette Cayrol, Marie-Christine Lagasquie-Schiex * IRIT-UPS, Université de Toulouse, FranceA B S T R A C T Different abstract argumentation frameworks have been used for various applications within multi-agents systems. Among them, bipolar frameworks make use of both attack and support relations between arguments. However, there is no single interpretation of the support, and the handling of bipolarity cannot avoid a deeper analysis of the notion of support.In this paper we consider three recent proposals for specializing the support relation in abstract argumentation: the deductive support, the necessary support and the evidential support. These proposals have been developed independently within different frameworks. We restate these proposals in a common setting, which enables us to undertake a comparative study of the modellings obtained for the three variants of the support. We highlight relationships and differences between these variants, namely a kind of duality between the deductive and the necessary interpretations of the support.

show abstract

Section: Modelling Various Kinds Of Supportmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Modelling Various Kinds Of Supportmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Bipolarity in Argumentation Graphs: Towards a Better Understanding

Cayrol

Lagasquie-Schiex

2011

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

134

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The first added complex attack, called extended attack in [21] and secondary attack in [9] has been proposed in the following case: Suppose that aR att c and cR sup b. "The acceptance of a implies the non-acceptance of c" and so "the acceptance of a implies the non-acceptance of b".…”

Section: Definition 6 ([9] Supported Attack)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In [8], the support relation is left general so that the bipolar framework keeps a high level of abstraction. However there is no single interpretation of the support, and a number of researchers proposed specialized variants of the support relation: deductive support [5], necessary support [21,22], evidential support [23,24], backing support [13]. Each specialization can be associated with an appropriate modelling using an appropriate complex attack.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Axiomatic Approach to Support in Argumentation

Cayrol

Lagasquie-Schiex

2015

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

OATAO is an open access repository that collects the work of Toulouse researchers and makes it freely available over the web where possible. This is an author-deposited version published in : http://oatao.univ-toulouse.fr/ Eprints ID : 15488The contribution was presented at : http://homepages.abdn.ac.uk/n.oren/pages/TAFA-15/ Any correspondence concerning this service should be sent to the repository administrator: staff-oatao@listes-diff.inp-toulouse.fr An axiomatic approach to support in argumentationClaudette Cayrol and Marie-Christine Lagasquie-Schiex IRIT-UPS, Toulouse, France {ccayrol,lagasq}@irit.frAbstract. In the context of bipolar argumentation (argumentation with two kinds of interaction, attacks and supports), we present an axiomatic approach for taking into account a special interpretation of the support relation, the necessary support. We propose constraints that should be imposed to a bipolar argumentation system using this interpretation. Some of these constraints concern the new attack relations, others concern acceptability. We extend basic Dung's framework in different ways in order to propose frameworks suitable for encoding these constraints. By the way, we propose a formal study of properties of necessary support.

show abstract

Block Argumentation

Arisaka¹,

Bistarelli²,

Santini³

2019

PRIMA 2019: Principles and Practice of Multi-Agent Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We contemplate a higher-level bipolar abstract argumentation for nonelementary arguments such as: X argues against Y's sincerity with the fact that Y has presented his argument to draw a conclusion C, by omitting other facts which would not have validated C. Argumentation involving such arguments requires us to potentially consider an argument as a coherent block of argumentation, i.e. an argument may itself be an argumentation. In this work, we formulate block argumentation as a specific instance of Dung-style bipolar abstract argumentation with the dual nature of arguments. We consider internal consistency of an argument(ation) under a set of constraints, of graphical (syntactic) and of semantic nature, and formulate acceptability semantics in relation to them. We discover that classical acceptability semantics do not in general hold good with the constraints. In particular, acceptability of unattacked arguments is not always warranted. Further, there may not be a unique minimal member in complete semantics, thus sceptic (grounded) semantics may not be its subset. To retain set-theoretically minimal semantics as a subset of complete semantics, we define semi-grounded semantics. Through comparisons, we show how the concept of block argumentation may further generalise structured argumentation.

show abstract

Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks with Specialized Supports

Cited by 35 publications

References 9 publications

Bipolarity in Argumentation Graphs: Towards a Better Understanding

Bipolarity in Argumentation Graphs: Towards a Better Understanding

An Axiomatic Approach to Support in Argumentation

Block Argumentation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About