Dynamics in Argumentation with Single Extensions: Abstraction Principles and the Grounded Extension

  • Guido Boella
  • Souhila Kaci
  • Leendert van der Torre
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5590)


In this paper we consider the dynamics of abstract argumentation in Baroni and Giacomin’s framework for the evaluation of extension based argumentation semantics. Following Baroni and Giacomin, we do not consider individual approaches, but we define general principles or postulates that individual approaches may satisfy. In particular, we define abstraction principles for the attack relation, and for the arguments in the framework. We illustrate the principles on the grounded extension. In this paper we consider only principles for the single extension case, and leave the multiple extension case to further research.


Multiagent System Argumentation Framework Acceptance Function Attack Relation Prefer Extension 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Baroni, P., Giacomin, M.: On principle-based evaluation of extension-based argumentation semantics. Artificial Intelligence 171(10-15), 675–700 (2007)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barringer, H., Gabbay, D.M., Woods, J.: Temporal dynamics of support and attack networks: From argumentation to zoology. In: Hutter, D., Stephan, W. (eds.) Mechanizing Mathematical Reasoning. LNCS, vol. 2605, pp. 59–98. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Boella, G., Kaci, S., van der Torre, L.: Dynamics in argumentation with single extensions: Attack refinement and the grounded extension (short paper). In: Proc. of 8th Int. Conf. on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2009) (2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Caminada, M.: On the issue of reinstatement in argumentation. In: Fisher, M., van der Hoek, W., Konev, B., Lisitsa, A. (eds.) JELIA 2006. LNCS, vol. 4160, pp. 111–123. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cayrol, C., de Saint Cyr Bannay, F.D., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.C.: Revision of an argumentation system. In: 11th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2008), pp. 124–134 (2008)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dung, P.M.: 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)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rotstein, N.D., Moguillansky, M.O., Garcia, A.J., Simari, G.R.: An abstract argumentation framework for handling dynamics. In: Proceedings of the Argument, Dialogue and Decision Workshop in NMR 2008, Sydney, Australia, pp. 131–139 (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Guido Boella
    • 1
  • Souhila Kaci
    • 2
  • Leendert van der Torre
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of TorinoItaly
  2. 2.Université Lille-Nord de France, Artois, CRIL, CNRS UMR 8188 – IUT de LensFrance
  3. 3.Computer Science and CommunicationUniversity of LuxembourgLuxembourg

Personalised recommendations