Coalitions of arguments: A tool for handling bipolar argumentation frameworks

Cayrol, Claudette; Lagasquie-Schiex, Marie-Christine

doi:10.1002/int.20389

Cited by 51 publications

(87 citation statements)

References 13 publications

(12 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Cayrol and Lagasquie-Schiex [13] propose to turn a bipolar argumentation framework into a meta-argumentation framework where conflicts occur between sets -the "loss of admissibility" in Dung's sense: the introduction of coalitions of arguments leads to the problem of having extensions where it is not true that the arguments in the set defend themselves, i.e., the extension is admissible [15].…”

Section: -Prof1: She Cannot Apply For a Phd On May (Arg A) -Stud: I mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this paper, we underline another drawback in the approach proposed by Cayrol and Lagasquie-Schiex [12,13]:…”

Section: -Prof1: She Cannot Apply For a Phd On May (Arg A) -Stud: I mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Section 2 presents bipolar argumentation frameworks as they have been firstly defined in [12] and how they have been further improved in [13]. We highlight the drawbacks of such a way of modeling support.…”

Section: -Prof1: She Cannot Apply For a Phd On May (Arg A) -Stud: I mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Moreover, the definitions provided by [12] are rather complex and choosing the corresponding extensions, then computing them seems hard. So, Cayrol and Lagasquie-Schiex [13] propose to reuse Dung's methodology in a "meta-argumentation" framework, where conflicts occur between coalitions of supporting arguments. Cayrol and Lagasquie-Schiex [14] summarizes and compare different support models in abstract argumentation, showing how they can be reduced to the same bipolar argumentation framework.…”

Section: And Only If Cf(s) and S ⊆ D(s) -S ∈ E S-admiss (Af) If And mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Modelling defeasible and prioritized support in bipolar argumentation

Villata

Boella

Gabbay

et al. 2012

Ann Math Artif Intell

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cayrol and Lagasquie-Schiex introduce bipolar argumentation frameworks by introducing a second relation on the arguments for representing the support among them. The main drawback of their approach is that they cannot encode defeasible support, for instance they cannot model an attack towards a support relation. In this paper, we introduce a way to model defeasible support in bipolar argumentation frameworks. We use the methodology of meta-argumentation in which Dung's theory is used to reason about itself. Dung's well-known admissibility semantics can be used on this meta-argumentation framework to compute the acceptable arguments, and all properties of Dung's classical theory are preserved. Moreover, we show how different contexts can lead to the alternative strengthening of the support relation over the attack relation, and converse. Finally, we present two applications of our methodology for modeling support, the case of arguments provided with an internal structure and the case of abstract dialectical frameworks.

show abstract

Section: -Prof1: She Cannot Apply For a Phd On May (Arg A) -Stud: I mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this paper, we underline another drawback in the approach proposed by Cayrol and Lagasquie-Schiex [12,13]:…”

Section: -Prof1: She Cannot Apply For a Phd On May (Arg A) -Stud: I mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: -Prof1: She Cannot Apply For a Phd On May (Arg A) -Stud: I mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: And Only If Cf(s) and S ⊆ D(s) -S ∈ E S-admiss (Af) If And mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Modelling defeasible and prioritized support in bipolar argumentation

Villata

Boella

Gabbay

et al. 2012

Ann Math Artif Intell

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Meta-level argumentation has been proposed in several works [17,5,11,21] and further developed with different goals. Boella and colleagues [7,8], in particular, proposed the meta-argumentation methodology where extended argumentation frameworks are instantiated with meta-arguments, and reasoning in the meta-level is allowed without the need to extend Dung-like abstract framework.…”

Section: Meta-argumentationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Enhancing Goal-Based Requirements Consistency: An Argumentation-Based Approach

Mirbel

Villata

2012

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Requirements engineering research has for long recognized the leading role of goals as requirement artifacts during the requirements engineering specification processes. Given the large number of artifacts created during the requirements specification and the continuous evolution of these artifacts, reasoning about them remains a challenging task. Moreover, the rising complexity of the target domain under consideration during the requirements engineering process as well as the growth of geographically distributed projects explain why the number of collected requirements as well as their complexity also increase. In this context, providing support to stakeholders in achieving a common understanding of a set of goal-based requirements, in consolidating them and keeping them consistent over time is another challenging task. In this paper, we propose an approach to detect consistent sets of goal-based requirements and maintain their consistency over time. Our approach relies on argumentation theory which allows to detect the conflicts among elements called arguments. In particular, we rely on meta-argumentation, which instantiates abstract argumentation frameworks, where requirements are represented as arguments and the standard Dung-like argumentation framework is extended with additional relations between goal-based requirements.

show abstract