Abstract
When several agents are engaged in an argumentation process, they are faced with the problem of deciding how to contribute to the current state of the debate in order to satisfy their own goal, ie. to make an argument under a given semantics accepted or not. In this paper, we study the minimal changes (or target sets) on the current state of the debate that are required to achieve such a goal, where changes are the addition and/or deletion of attacks among arguments. We study some properties of these target sets, and propose a Maude specification of rewriting rules which allow to compute all the target sets for some types of goals.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Bonzon, E., Maudet, N.: On the outcomes of multiparty persuasion. In: Proc. of AAMAS 2011, pp. 47–54 (2011)
Kontarinis, D., Bonzon, E., Maudet, N., Moraitis, P.: Picking the right expert to make a debate uncontroversial. In: Proc. of COMMA 2012, pp. 486–497 (2012)
Egilmez, S., Martins, J., Leite, J.: Extending social abstract argumentation with votes on attacks. In: Proc. of TAFA 2013 (to appear, 2013)
Bench-capon, T.J.M., Doutre, S., Dunne, P.E.: Value-based argumentation frameworks. In: Artificial Intelligence, pp. 444–453 (2002)
Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C.: On the acceptability of arguments in preference-based argumentation. In: Proc. of UAI 1998, pp. 1–7 (1998)
Modgil, S.: Revisiting abstract argumentation frameworks. In: Proc. of TAFA 2013 (to appear, 2013)
Boella, G., Gabbay, D.M., Perotti, A., van der Torre, L., Villata, S.: Conditional labelling for abstract argumentation. In: Modgil, S., Oren, N., Toni, F. (eds.) TAFA 2011. LNCS, vol. 7132, pp. 232–248. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)
Clavel, M., Durán, F., Eker, S., Lincoln, P., Martí-Oliet, N., Meseguer, J., Quesada, J.F.: The maude system. In: Narendran, P., Rusinowitch, M. (eds.) RTA 1999. LNCS, vol. 1631, pp. 240–243. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)
Villata, S., Boella, G., van der Torre, L.: Attack semantics for abstract argumentation. In: Walsh, T. (ed.) Proc. of IJCAI 2011, IJCAI/AAAI, pp. 406–413 (2011)
Modgil, S., Caminada, M.: Proof theories and algorithms for abstract argumentation frameworks. In: Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 105–129. Springer US (2009)
Cayrol, C., de Saint-Cyr, F.D., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.C.: Change in abstract argumentation frameworks: Adding an argument. J. Artificial Intelligence Research (JAIR) 38, 49–84 (2010)
Baumann, R., Brewka, G.: Expanding argumentation frameworks: Enforcing and monotonicity results. In: COMMA, pp. 75–86 (2010)
Liao, B., Jin, L., Koons, R.C.: Dynamics of argumentation systems: A division-based method. Artificial Intelligence 175(11), 1790–1814 (2011)
Baumann, R.: What does it take to enforce an argument? minimal change in abstract argumentation. In: ECAI, pp. 127–132 (2012)
Coste-Marquis, S., Konieczny, S., Mailly, J.G., Marquis, P.: On the revision of argumentation systems: Minimal change of arguments status. In: Proc. of TAFA 2013 (to appear, 2013)
Bisquert, P., Cayrol, C., de Saint-Cyr, F.D., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.C.: Characterizing change in abstract argumentation systems. Technical report, IRIT-UPS (2013)
Bisquert, P., Cayrol, C., de Saint-Cyr, F.D., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.C.: Changements guidés par les buts en argumentation: Cadre théorique et outil. In: MFI 2013 (2013)
Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-persons games. Artificial Intelligence 77, 321–357 (1995)
Jakobovits, H., Vermeir, D.: Robust semantics for argumentation frameworks. J. Log. Comput. 9(2), 215–261 (1999)
Caminada, M.: On the issue of reinstatement in argumentation. In: Fisher, M., van der Hoek, W., Konev, B., Lisitsa, A. (eds.) JELIA 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4160, pp. 111–123. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Kontarinis, D., Bonzon, E., Maudet, N., Perotti, A., van der Torre, L., Villata, S. (2013). Rewriting Rules for the Computation of Goal-Oriented Changes in an Argumentation System. In: Leite, J., Son, T.C., Torroni, P., van der Torre, L., Woltran, S. (eds) Computational Logic in Multi-Agent Systems. CLIMA 2013. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 8143. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40624-9_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40624-9_4
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-40623-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-40624-9
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)