Encompassing Attacks to Attacks in Abstract Argumentation Frameworks

  • Pietro Baroni
  • Federico Cerutti
  • Massimiliano Giacomin
  • Giovanni Guida
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5590)

Abstract

In the traditional definition of Dung’s abstract argumentation framework (\(\ensuremath{AF}\)), the notion of attack is understood as a relation between arguments, thus bounding attacks to start from and be directed to arguments. This paper introduces a generalized definition of abstract argumentation framework called \(\ensuremath{AFRA}\) (Argumentation Framework with Recursive Attacks), where an attack is allowed to be directed towards another attack. From a conceptual point of view, we claim that this generalization supports a straightforward representation of reasoning situations which are not easily accommodated within the traditional framework. From the technical side, we first investigate the extension to the generalized framework of the basic notions of conflict-free set, acceptable argument, admissible set and of Dung’s fundamental lemma. Then we propose a correspondence from the \(\ensuremath{AFRA}\) to the \(\ensuremath{AF}\) formalism, showing that it satisfies some basic desirable properties. Finally we analyze the relationships between \(\ensuremath{AFRA}\) and a similar extension of Dung’s abstract argumentation framework, called \(\ensuremath{EAF+}\) and derived from the recently proposed formalism \(\ensuremath{EAF}\).

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    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)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Persuasion in practical argument using value based argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation 13(3), 429–448 (2003)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.C., Livet, P.: On bipolarity in argumentation frameworks. Int. Journal of Intelligent Systems 23, 1062–1093 (2008)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Modgil, S.: An abstract theory of argumentation that accommodates defeasible reasoning about preferences. In: Mellouli, K. (ed.) ECSQARU 2007. LNCS, vol. 4724, pp. 648–659. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bench-Capon, T.J.M., Mogdil, S.: Integrating object and meta-level value based argumentation. In: Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2008), Toulouse, F, pp. 240–251 (2008)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Modgil, S.: Reasoning about preferences in argumentation frameworks. Artificial Intelligenc (in press, 2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    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
  8. 8.
    Boella, G., van der Torre, L., Villata, S.: Social viewpoints for arguing about coalitions. In: Proc. 11th Pacific Rim Int. Conf. on Multi-Agents (PRIMA 2008), pp. 66–77 (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pietro Baroni
    • 1
  • Federico Cerutti
    • 1
  • Massimiliano Giacomin
    • 1
  • Giovanni Guida
    • 1
  1. 1.Dipartimento di Elettronica per l’AutomazioneUniversità di BresciaBresciaItaly

Personalised recommendations