Labeled Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks

Abstract

An essential part of argumentation-based reasoning is to identify arguments in favor and against a statement or query, select the acceptable ones, and then determine whether or not the original statement should be accepted. We present here an abstract framework that considers two independent forms of argument interaction—support and conflict—and is able to represent distinctive information associated with these arguments. This information can enable additional actions such as: (i) a more in-depth analysis of the relations between the arguments; (ii) a representation of the user’s posture to help in focusing the argumentative process, optimizing the values of attributes associated with certain arguments; and (iii) an enhancement of the semantics taking advantage of the availability of richer information about argument acceptability. Thus, the classical semantic definitions are enhanced by analyzing a set of postulates they satisfy. Finally, a polynomial-time algorithm to perform the labeling process is introduced, in which the argument interactions are considered.

A Model to Support Collective Reasoning: Formalization, Analysis and Computational Assessment

“…The fact that this coherent view takes into account the votes of participants also gives our work a fourth connection with the argumentation literature, in its relation to work on accrual. Fifth, the fact that we are concerned with opinions for and against target statements clearly connects our work to bipolar argumentation, and the kinds of labels that we use connects it most closely to the work of Escañuela Gonzalez et al (2021) within work on bipolar argumentation. However, our work also differs from all of that listed so far in that the latter is ultimately focused on applying some form of the Dung semantics to resolve the conflicts between arguments whereas our work does not consider the Dung semantics at all.…”

“…For example, Brewka et al (Brewka & Woltran, 2014;Brewka, Pührer, & Woltran, 2019) introduced the GRAPPA frameworkitself based on abstract dialectical frameworks (Brewka & Woltran, 2010) which are another generalization of Dung-style systems -which can express a range of classes of argument that expand on just "support" and "attack" 9 . Most recently, Escañuela Gonzalez et al (2021) have provided a general means of expressing information about support and attack that allows features such as numerical labels, and elements that allow the combination of strengths of arguments to propagate to those arguments that are supported or attacked. Both GRAPPA and the work of Escañuela Gonzalez et al clearly have strong similarities with the mechanisms at the heart of our DRFs.…”

Non-flat ABA Is an Instance of Bipolar Argumentation

“…The most prominent ones are deductive (Boella et al 2010), necessary (Nouioua and Risch 2010), evidential (Oren and Norman 2008) and backing (Cohen, García, and Simari 2012) support. More recent work on classical BAFs looked at symmetry between attack and support (Potyka 2020), argument attributes (Gonzalez et al 2021) and monotonicity (Gargouri et al 2021).…”

Complexity of Credulous and Skeptical Acceptance in Epistemic Argumentation Framework

“…Despite the expressive power and generality of Dung's framework, in some cases it is difficult to accurately model domain knowledge by an AF in a natural and easy-tounderstand way. For this reason, Dung's framework has been extended by introducing further constructs, such as preferences (Amgoud and Cayrol 1998;Modgil and Prakken 2013;Alfano et al 2022bAlfano et al , 2023b weights Santini 2019, 2021;Bistarelli, Rossi, and Santini 2018), supports (Cayrol and Lagasquie-Schiex 2013;Cohen et al 2018;Cayrol, Cohen, and Lagasquie-Schiex 2021;Gonzalez The Thirty-Eighth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-24) In the following we focus on an interesting extension of Dung's framework with epistemic constraints called Epistemic Argumentation Framework (EAF) (Sakama and Son 2020). Herein, an epistemic constraint represents the belief of an agent that must be satisfied.…”