Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Partial Semantics of Argumentation

  • Conference paper
Book cover Logic, Rationality, and Interaction (LORI 2011)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 6953))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 958 Accesses

Abstract

In various argumentation systems, under most of situations, only the justification status of some arguments of the systems should be evaluated, while that of other arguments is not necessary to be figured out. Based on this observation, we introduce an efficient method to evaluate the status of a part of arguments in an argumentation framework. This method is based on the notion of unattacked sets of an argumentation framework and the directionality criterion of argumentation semantics. Given an argumentation framework and a subset of arguments within it, we firstly identify the minimal set of arguments that are relevant to the arguments in this subset (called the minimal unattacked set). Then, under an argumentation semantics satisfying the directionality criterion, the set of extensions of the sub-framework induced by the minimal unattacked set (called a partial semantics of the original argumentation framework) can be evaluated independently. Then, we analyze two basic properties of the partial semantics of argumentation: monotonicity and combinability.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Amgoud, L.: A formal framework for handling conflicting desires. In: Nielsen, T.D., Zhang, N.L. (eds.) ECSQARU 2003. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2711, pp. 552–563. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  2. Amgoud, L., Dimopoulos, Y., Moraitis, P.: A general framework for argumentation-based negotiation. In: Rahwan, I., Parsons, S., Reed, C. (eds.) Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4946, pp. 1–17. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  3. Amgoud, L., Prade, H.: Using arguments for making and explaining decisions. Artificial Intelligence 173(3-4), 413–436 (2009)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Baroni, P., Giacomin, M.: On principle-based evaluation of extension-based argumentation semantics. Artificial Intelligence 171(10-15), 675–700 (2007)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Baroni, P., Giacomin, M.: Semantics of abstract argument systems. In: Rahwan, I., Simari, G.R. (eds.) Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 25–44. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. Baroni, P., Giacomin, M., Guida, G.: Scc-recursiveness: a general schema for argumentation semantics. Artificial Intelligence 168(1-2), 162–210 (2005)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Bench-Capon, T., Dunne, P.E.: Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Artificial Intelligence 171(10-15), 619–641 (2007)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Boella, G., Kaci, S., van der Torre, L.: Dynamics in argumentation with single extensions: Abstraction principles and the grounded extension. In: Sossai, C., Chemello, G. (eds.) ECSQARU 2009. LNCS, vol. 5590, pp. 107–118. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  9. Boella, G., Pigozzi, G., van der Torre, L.: Normative framework for normative system change. In: Proceedings of the AAMAS 2009, pp. 169–176 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Bondarenko, A., Dung, P., Kowalski, R., Toni, F.: An abstract, argumentation-theoretic approach to default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 93, 63–101 (1997)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Caminada, M.: Semi-stable semantics. In: Proceedings of the COMMA 2006, pp. 121–130. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Caminada, M.: An algorithm for computing semi-stable semantics. In: Mellouli, K. (ed.) ECSQARU 2007. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4724, pp. 222–234. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. Capobianco, M., Chesñevar, C., Simari, G.: Argumentation and the dynamics of warranted beliefs in changing environments. Journal of Agents and Multi-agent Systems 11(2), 127–151 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Dung, P.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence 77(2), 321–357 (1995)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Dung, P., Kowalski, R., Toni, F.: Dialectic proof procedures for assumption-based, admissible argumentation. Artificial Intelligence 170(2), 114–159 (2006)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Dung, P., Mancarella, P., Toni, F.: Computing ideal sceptical argumentation. Artificial Intelligence 171(10-15), 642–674 (2007)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Dunne, P., Hunter, A., McBurney, P., Parsons, S., Wooldridge, M.: Weighted argument systems: Basic definitions, algorithms, and complexity results. Artificial Intelligence 175(2), 457–486 (2011)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Egly, U., Gaggl, S., Woltran, S.: ASPARTIX: Implementing argumentation frameworks using answer-set programming. In: Garcia de la Banda, M., Pontelli, E. (eds.) ICLP 2008. LNCS, vol. 5366, pp. 734–738. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  19. Kakas, A.C., Miller, R., Toni, F.: An argumentation framework for reasoning about actions and change. In: Gelfond, M., Leone, N., Pfeifer, G. (eds.) LPNMR 1999. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1730, pp. 78–91. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  20. Kim, E., Ordyniak, S., Szeider, S.: Algorithms and complexity results for persuasive argumentation. Artificial Intelligence 175(9-10), 1722–1736 (2011)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  21. Liao, B., Huang, H.: Angle: An autonomous, normative and guidable agent with changing knowledge. Information Sciences 180(17), 3117–3139 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Liao, B., Jin, L., Koons, R.: Dynamics of argumentation systems: A division-based method. Artificial Intelligence 175(11), 1790–1814 (2011)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  23. Modgil, S., Caminada, M.: Proof theories and algorithms for abstract argumentation frameworks. In: Rahwan, I., Simari, G.R. (eds.) Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 105–129. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  24. Modgil, S., Luck, M.: Argumentation based resolution of conflicts between desires and normative goals. In: Rahwan, I., Moraitis, P. (eds.) ArgMAS 2008. LNCS(LNAI), vol. 5384, pp. 19–36. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  25. Wakaki, T., Nitta, K.: Computing argumentation semantics in answer set programming. In: Hattori, H., Kawamura, T., Idé, T., Yokoo, M., Murakami, Y. (eds.) JSAI 2008. LNCS(LNAI), vol. 5447, pp. 254–269. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for the Study of Language and Cognition, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, 310028, China

    Beishui Liao & Huaxin Huang

Authors
  1. Beishui Liao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Huaxin Huang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Sevilla, Camilo José Cela s/n, 41018, Sevilla, Spain

    Hans van Ditmarsch

  2. Université Paul Sabatier, IRIT, 118 Route de Narbonne, 31062, Toulouse Cedex 04, France

    Jérôme Lang

  3. Institute of Logic and Cognition, Department of Philosophy, Sun Yat-sen University, 510275, Guangzhou, China

    Shier Ju

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Liao, B., Huang, H. (2011). Partial Semantics of Argumentation. In: van Ditmarsch, H., Lang, J., Ju, S. (eds) Logic, Rationality, and Interaction. LORI 2011. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 6953. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-24130-7_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-24130-7_11

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-24129-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-24130-7

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation