Understanding the Abstract Dialectical Framework

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


Among the most general structures extending the framework by Dung are the abstract dialectical frameworks (ADFs). They come equipped with various types of semantics, with the most prominent – the labeling–based one – being analyzed in the context of computational complexity, instantiations and software support. This makes the abstract dialectical frameworks valuable tools for argumentation. However, there are fewer results available concerning the relation between the ADFs and other argumentation frameworks. In this paper we would like to address this issue by introducing a number of translations from various formalisms into ADFs. The results of our study show the similarities and differences between them, thus promoting the use and understanding of ADFs. Moreover, our analysis also proves their capability to model many of the existing frameworks, including those that go beyond the attack relation. Finally, translations allow other structures to benefit from the research on ADFs in general and from the existing software in particular.


  1. 1.
    Rahwan, I., Simari, G.R.: Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, 1st edn. Springer, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    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
  3. 3.
    Brewka, G., Polberg, S., Woltran, S.: Generalizations of Dung frameworks and their role in formal argumentation. IEEE Intell. Syst. 29, 30–38 (2014)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brewka, G., Woltran, S.: Abstract dialectical frameworks. In: Proceedings of KR 2010, pp. 102–111. AAAI Press (2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Strass, H.: Approximating operators and semantics for abstract dialectical frameworks. Artif. Intell. 205, 39–70 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brewka, G., Ellmauthaler, S., Strass, H., Wallner, J.P., Woltran, S.: Abstract dialectical frameworks revisited. In: Proceedings of IJCAI 2013, pp. 803–809. AAAI Press (2013)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Polberg, S.: Extension-based semantics of abstract dialectical frameworks. In: Proceedings of STAIRS 2014. FAIA, vol. 264, pp. 240–249. IOS Press (2014)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Polberg, S.: Revisiting extension-based semantics of abstract dialectical frameworks. Technical report DBAI-TR-2015-88, Institute for Information Systems, Technical University of Vienna (2015)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Strass, H., Wallner, J.P.: Analyzing the computational complexity of abstract dialectical frameworks via approximation fixpoint theory. In: Proceedings of KR 2014, Vienna, Austria, pp. 101–110. AAAI Press (2014)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Strass, H.: Instantiating knowledge bases in abstract dialectical frameworks. In: Leite, J., Son, T.C., Torroni, P., van der Torre, L., Woltran, S. (eds.) CLIMA XIV 2013. LNCS, vol. 8143, pp. 86–101. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ellmauthaler, S., Strass, H.: The DIAMOND system for computing with abstract dialectical frameworks. In: Proceedings of COMMA 2014. FAIA, vol. 266, pp. 233–240. IOS Press (2014)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.C.: Bipolarity in argumentation graphs: towards a better understanding. Int. J. Approx. Reasoning 54, 876–899 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nouioua, F.: AFs with necessities: further semantics and labelling characterization. In: Liu, W., Subrahmanian, V.S., Wijsen, J. (eds.) SUM 2013. LNCS, vol. 8078, pp. 120–133. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Polberg, S., Oren, N.: Revisiting support in abstract argumentation systems. In: Proceedings of COMMA 2014. FAIA, vol. 266, pp. 369–376. IOS Press (2014)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nielsen, S.H., Parsons, S.: A generalization of Dung’s abstract framework for argumentation: arguing with sets of attacking arguments. In: Maudet, N., Parsons, S., Rahwan, I. (eds.) ArgMAS 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4766, pp. 54–73. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Modgil, S., Prakken, H.: Reasoning about preferences in structured extended argumentation frameworks. In: Proceedings of COMMA 2010, pp. 347–358 (2010)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Modgil, S., Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Metalevel argumentation. J. Log. Comput. 21, 959–1003 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Modgil, S.: Revisiting abstract argumentation frameworks. In: Black, E., Modgil, S., Oren, N. (eds.) TAFA 2013. LNCS, vol. 8306, pp. 1–15. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. J. Log. Comput. 13, 429–448 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Amgoud, L., Vesic, S.: A new approach for preference-based argumentation frameworks. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 63, 149–183 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Modgil, S.: Reasoning about preferences in argumentation frameworks. Artif. Intell. 173, 901–934 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Oren, N., Reed, C., Luck, M.: Moving between argumentation frameworks. In: Proceedings of COMMA 2010, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 379–390. IOS Press (2010)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Boella, G., Gabbay, D.M., van der Torre, L., Villata, S.: Meta-argumentation modelling I: methodology and techniques. Stud. Logica. 93, 297–355 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C.: A reasoning model based on the production of acceptable arguments. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 34(1–3), 197–215 (2002). http://dblp.uni-trier.de MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations