Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Normal Form for Argumentation Frameworks

  • Conference paper
Theory and Applications of Formal Argumentation (TAFA 2013)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 8306))

Abstract

We study formal argumentation frameworks as introduced by Dung (1995). We show that any such argumentation framework can be syntactically augmented into a normal form (having a simplified attack relation), preserving the semantic properties of original arguments.

An argumentation framework is in normal form if no argument attacks a conflicting pair of arguments. An augmentation of an argumentation framework is obtained by adding new arguments and changing the attack relation such that the acceptability status of original arguments is maintained in the new framework. Furthermore, we define join-normal semantics leading to augmentations of the joined argumentation frameworks. Also, a rewriting technique which transforms in cubic time a given argumentation framework into a normal form is devised.

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. Baroni, P., Giacomin, M.: Solving semantic problems with odd-length cycles in argumentation. In: Nielsen, T.D., Zhang, N.L. (eds.) ECSQARU 2003. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2711, pp. 440–451. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  3. Baumann, R., Brewka, G.: Expanding argumentation frameworks: Enforcing and monotonicity results. In: Proc. of COMMA 2010, pp. 75–86 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bench-Capon, T.: Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation 13, 429–448 (2003)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. Boella, G., Kaci, S., van der Torre, L.: Dynamics in argumentation with single extensions: Attack refinement and the grounded extension (Extended version). In: McBurney, P., Rahwan, I., Parsons, S., Maudet, N. (eds.) ArgMAS 2009. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 6057, pp. 150–159. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. Brass, S., Dix, J.: Characterizations of the disjunctive stable semantics by partial evaluation. Journal of Logic Programming 32, 207–228 (1997)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  7. 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)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. Caminada, M., Amgoud, L.: On the evaluation of argumentation formalisms. Artificial Intelligence 171, 286–310 (2007)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  9. Caminada, M., Wu, Y.: On the limitations of abstract argumentation. In: BNAIC, pp. 59–66 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Cayrol, C., de Dupin Saint-Cyr, F., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.C.: Change in abstract argumentation frameworks: Adding an argument. Journal of Artificial Intelligence 38, 49–84 (2010)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  12. Dunne, P., Bench-Capon, T.: Coherence in finite argument systems. Artificial Intelligence 141, 187–203 (2002)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  13. Dunne, P.E.: Computational properties of argument systems satisfying graph-theoretic constraints. Artificial Intelligence 171, 701–729 (2007)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  14. Dvorák, W., Spanring, C.: Comparing the expressiveness of argumentation semantics. In: Proc. of COMMA 2006, pp. 261–272 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Dvorák, W., Woltran, S.: On the intertranslatability of argumentation semantics. Artificial Intelligence 41, 445–475 (2011)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Fraenkel, A.: Combinatorial game theory foundations applied to digraph kernels. The Electronic Journal of Combinatorics 4, 100–117 (1997)

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  17. Hunter, A., Gorogiannis, N.: Instantiating abstract argumentation with classical logic arguments: Postulates and properties. Artificial Intelligence 175, 1479–1497 (2011)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  18. Pollock, J.L.: Cognitive Carpentry. A Blueprint for How to Build a Person. MIT Press, Cambridge (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Prakken, H.: An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. Argumentation and Computation 1, 93–124 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Prakken, H.: Some reflections on two current trends in formal argumentation. In: Artikis, A., Craven, R., Kesim Çiçekli, N., Sadighi, B., Stathis, K. (eds.) Sergot Festschrift 2012. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 7360, pp. 249–272. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  21. Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: A dialectical model of assessing conflicting arguments in legal reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law 4, 331–368 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Prakken, H., Vreeswijk, G.: Logics for defeasible argumentation. In: Handbook of Philosophical Logic, 2nd edn., vol. 4, pp. 218–319. Kluwer (2002)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. MPI, Saarbrücken, Germany

    Cosmina Croitoru

  2. Universität Jena, Jena, Germany

    Timo Kötzing

Authors
  1. Cosmina Croitoru
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Timo Kötzing
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Informatics, King’s College London, Strand, WC2R 2LS, London, UK

    Elizabeth Black

  2. King’s College London, Strand, WC2R 2LS, London, UK

    Sanjay Modgil

  3. Department of Computing Science, University of Aberdeen, AB24 3UE, Aberdeen, UK

    Nir Oren

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Croitoru, C., Kötzing, T. (2014). A Normal Form for Argumentation Frameworks. In: Black, E., Modgil, S., Oren, N. (eds) Theory and Applications of Formal Argumentation. TAFA 2013. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 8306. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-54373-9_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-54373-9_3

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-54372-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-54373-9

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation