Bipolarity in Argumentation Graphs: Towards a Better Understanding

  • Claudette Cayrol
  • Marie-Christine Lagasquie-Schiex
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6929)


Different abstract argumentation frameworks have been used for various applications within multi-agents systems. Among them, bipolar frameworks make use of both attack and support relations between arguments. However, there is no single interpretation of the support, and the handling of bipolarity cannot avoid a deeper analysis of the notion of support. In this paper we consider three recent proposals for specializing the support relation in abstract argumentation : the deductive support, the necessary support and the evidential support. These proposals have been developed independently within different frameworks. We restate these proposals in a common setting, which enables us to undertake a comparative study of the modellings obtained for the three variants of the support. We highlight relationships and differences between these variants, namely a kind of duality between the deductive and the necessary interpretations of the support.


Evidential Support Support Relation Argumentation Framework Direct Attack Attack Relation 
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.
    Boella, G., Gabbay, D.M., van der Torre, L., Villata, S.: Support in abstract argumentation. In: Proc. of COMMA, pp. 111–122. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2010)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brewka, G., Woltran, S.: Abstract dialectical frameworks. In: Proc. of KR, pp. 102–111 (2010)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.-C.: On the acceptability of arguments in bipolar argumentation frameworks. In: Godo, L. (ed.) ECSQARU 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3571, pp. 378–389. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.-C.: Coalitions of arguments: a tool for handling bipolar argumentation frameworks. International Journal of Intelligent Systems 25, 83–109 (2010)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    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)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Karacapilidis, N., Papadias, D.: Computer supported argumentation and collaborative decision making: the hermes system. Information systems 26(4), 259–277 (2001)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nouioua, F., Risch, V.: Bipolar argumentation frameworks with specialized supports. In: Proc. of ICTAI, pp. 215–218. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2010)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Oren, N., Norman, T.J.: Semantics for evidence-based argumentation. In: Proc. of COMMA, pp. 276–284 (2008)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Oren, N., Reed, C., Luck, M.: Moving between argumentation frameworks. In: Proc. of COMMA, pp. 379–390. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2010)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Verheij, B.: Deflog: on the logical interpretation of prima facie justified assumptions. Journal of Logic in Computation 13, 319–346 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Claudette Cayrol
    • 1
  • Marie-Christine Lagasquie-Schiex
    • 1
  1. 1.IRIT-UPS, Université de ToulouseFrance

Personalised recommendations