Modelling defeasible and prioritized support in bipolar argumentation

Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks (BAFs) encompass both attacks and supports among arguments. We study different semantic interpretations of support in BAFs, particularly necessary and deductive support, as well as argument coalitions and a recent proposal by Gabbay. We analyse the relationship of these different notions of support in BAFs with the semantics of a well established structured argumentation formalism, Assumption-Based Argumentation (ABA), which predates BAFs. We propose natural mappings from BAFs into a restricted class of (non-flat) ABA frameworks, which we call bipolar, and prove that the admissible and preferred semantics of these ABA frameworks correspond to the admissible and preferred semantics of the various approaches to BAFs. Motivated by the definition of stable semantics for BAFs, we introduce a novel set-stable semantics for ABA frameworks, and prove that it corresponds to the stable semantics of the various approaches to BAFs. Finally, as a by-product of modelling various approaches to BAFs in bipolar ABA, we identify precise semantic relationships amongst all approaches we consider

show abstract

“…sets of arguments) (e.g. see [17,4,18,6,23,10,14]) or in terms of numerical notions of strength (e.g. see [8,1]).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In particular, we plan to study the evidential argumentation frameworks of [19], BAFs that employ attacks from sets of arguments, e.g. [16,23]), and works that aim to model defeasible and/or recursive support, e.g. [23,12].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Capturing Bipolar Argumentation in Non-flat Assumption-Based Argumentation

Čyras

Schulz

Toni

2017

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The meaning of N cb could be that the support from c to b is not active. A similar idea can be found in [28,12] for the more general purpose of representing recursive and defeasible attacks and supports.…”

Section: A Meta-framework Encoding Necessary Supportmentioning

confidence: 92%

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

“…Then, higher-order attacks have been considered for representing preferences between arguments (second-order attacks in [76]), or for modelling situations where an attack might be defeated by an argument, without contesting the acceptability of the source of the attack [7]. Attacks to attacks and supports have been first considered in [64] with higher level networks, then in [92]; and more generally, in [42] an Attack-Support Argumentation Framework is proposed which allows for nested attacks and supports, i.e. attacks and supports whose targets can be other attacks or supports, at any level.…”

Section: Def 3 (Ebaf) An Evidence-based Argumentation Framework (Ebmentioning

confidence: 99%

Logical theories and abstract argumentation: A survey of existing works

Besnard

Cayrol

Lagasquie-Schiex

2020

AAC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 1995, in his seminal paper introducing the abstract argumentation framework, Dung has also established the first relationship between this framework and a logical framework (in this case: logic programming). Since that time, a lot of work have pursued this path, proposing different definitions, uses and exhibiting distinct relationships between argumentation and logic. In this paper, we present a survey of existing works about this topic and more especially those that address the following question: "How logic has been used for capturing various aspects or parts of Dung's argumentation". This survey covers many different approaches but is not intended to be totally exhaustive due to the huge quantity of papers in this scope. Moreover, due to the fact that each approach has its own specificities, sometimes antagonistic with the other approaches, and is also justified by its own context of definition or use, the aim of this survey is not to identify one approach as being better than another.

show abstract

Modelling defeasible and prioritized support in bipolar argumentation

Cited by 28 publications

References 20 publications

Capturing Bipolar Argumentation in Non-flat Assumption-Based Argumentation

Capturing Bipolar Argumentation in Non-flat Assumption-Based Argumentation

An Axiomatic Approach to Support in Argumentation

Logical theories and abstract argumentation: A survey of existing works

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About