Opposition Frameworks

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10021)

Abstract

In this paper we introduce opposition frameworks, a generalization of Dung’s argumentation frameworks.

While keeping the attack relation as the sole type of interaction between nodes and the abstract level of argumentation frameworks, opposition networks add more flexibility, reducing the gap between structured and abstract argumentation. A guarded attack calculus is developed in order to obtain proper generalizations of Dung’s admissibility-based semantics. The high modeling capabilities of our new setting offer an alternative instantiation solution (of other existing argumentation frameworks) for arguments evaluation.

References

  1. 1.
    Amgoud, L.: Postulates for logic-based argumentation systems. Int. J. Approximate Reasoning 55, 2028–2048 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baroni, P., Romano, M., Toni, F., Aurisicchio, M., Bertanza, G.: Automatic evaluation of design alternatives with quantitative argumentation. Argum. Comput. 6, 24–49 (2015)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bench-Capon, T.: Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. J. Logic Comput. 13, 429–448 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Besnard, P., Doutre, S.: Checking the acceptability of a set of arguments. In: Proceedings of NMR, pp. 59–64 (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bourguet, J.-R., Amgoud, L., Thomopoulos, R.: Towards a unified model of preference-based argumentation. In: Link, S., Prade, H. (eds.) FoIKS 2010. LNCS, vol. 5956, pp. 326–344. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-11829-6_21 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brewka, G.: Nonmonotonic tools for argumentation. In: Janhunen, T., Niemelä, I. (eds.) JELIA 2010. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 6341, pp. 1–6. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-15675-5_1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brewka, G., Polberg, S., Woltran, S.: Generalizations of dung frameworks and their role in formal argumentation. IEEE Intell. Syst. 29, 30 (2014)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brewka, G., Woltran, S.: Abstract dialectical frameworks. In: Proceedings of KR 2010, pp. 102–111 (2010)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brewka, G., Woltran, S.: GRAPPA: a semantical framework for graph-based argument processing. In: Proceedings of ECAI 2014, pp. 153–158 (2014)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brochenin, R., Linsbichler, B., Wallner, J.P., Woltran, S.: Abstract solvers for dung’s argumentation frameworks. In: Proceedings of TAFA (2015)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Caminada, M., Amgoud, L.: On the evaluation of argumentation formalisms. Artif. Intell. 171, 286–310 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Coste-Marquis, S., Devred, C., Marquis, P.: Symmetric argumentation frameworks. In: Godo, L. (ed.) ECSQARU 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3571, pp. 317–328. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). doi:10.1007/11518655_28 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Davis, M., Logemann, G., Loveland, D.V.: A machine program for theorem-proving. Commun. ACM 5, 394–397 (1962)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dimopoulos, Y., Torres, A.: Graph theoretical structures in logic programs and default theories. Theor. Comput. Sci. 170, 209–244 (1996)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif. Intell. 77, 321–357 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dunne, P., Bench-Capon, T.: Coherence in finite argument systems. Artif. Intell. 141, 187–203 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dunne, P.E., Hunter, A., McBurney, P., Parsons, S., Wooldridge, M.: Weighted argument systems: basic definitions, algorithms, and complexity results. Artif. Intell. 175, 457–486 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Finegan-Dollak, C., Radev, D.R.: Sentence simplification, compression, and disaggregation for summarization of sophisticated documents. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 67, 2437 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hunter, A., Gorogiannis, N.: Instantiating abstract argumentation with classical logic arguments: postulates and properties. Artif. Intell. 175, 1479–1497 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Leite, J., Martins, J.: Social abstract argumentation. In: Proceedings of IJCAI (2011)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Modgil, S.: Revisiting abstract argumentation frameworks. In: Black, E., Modgil, S., Oren, N. (eds.) TAFA 2013. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 8306, pp. 1–15. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-54373-9_1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Modgil, S., Caminada, M.: Proof theories and algorithms for abstract argumentation frameworks. In: Simari, G., Rahwan, I. (eds.) Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 105–129. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). doi:10.1007/978-0-387-98197-0_6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nielson, S., Parsons, S.: A generalization of dung’s abstract framework for argumentation: arguing with sets of attacking arguments. In: Proceedings of ArgMAS 2006, pp. 54–73 (2006)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Nieuwenhuis, R., Oliveras, A., Tinelli, C.: Solving SAT and SAT modulo theories: from an abstract Davis-Putnam-Logemann-Loveland procedure to DPLL(T). J. ACM 53, 937–977 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nofal, S., Atkinson, K., Dunne, P.: Algorithms for decision problems in argument systems under preferred semantics. Artif. Intell. 207, 23–51 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Prakken, H.: An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. Argum. Comput. 1, 93–124 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rahwan, I., Zablith, F., Reed, C.: Laying the foundations for a world wide argument web. Artif. Intell. 171, 897–921 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Villata, S., Boella, G., van der Torre, L.: Attack semantics for abstract argumentation. In: Proceedings of IJCAI 2011, pp. 406–413 (2011)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wang, B., Luo, G.: Extend argumentation frameworks based on degree of attack. In: Proceedings of the 9th IEEE International Conference on Cognitive Informatics, ICCI 2010, pp. 771–776 (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Max Planck Institut for InformaticsSaarbrückenGermany
  2. 2.Saarbrücken Graduate School in Computer ScienceSaarland UniversitySaarbrückenGermany

Personalised recommendations