Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Backing and Undercutting in Abstract Argumentation Frameworks

  • Conference paper
Foundations of Information and Knowledge Systems (FoIKS 2012)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNISA,volume 7153))

Abstract

This work will introduce a novel combination of two important argumentation related notions. We will start from the well-known basis of Abstract Argumentation Frameworks or AFs, and we will build a new formalism in which the notions corresponding to Toulmin’s backings and Pollock’s undercutting defeaters are considered. The resulting system, Backing-Undercutting Argumentation Frameworks or BUAFs, will be an extension of the AFs that includes a specialized support relation, a distinction between different attack types, and a preference relation among arguments. Thus, BUAFs will provide a richer representation tool for handling scenarios where information can be attacked and supported.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C.: A reasoning model based on the production of acceptable arguments. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 34(1-3), 197–215 (2002)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Amgoud, L., Vesic, S.: Two Roles of Preferences in Argumentation Frameworks. In: Liu, W. (ed.) ECSQARU 2011. LNCS, vol. 6717, pp. 86–97. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  3. Baroni, P., Cerutti, F., Giacomin, M., Guida, G.: AFRA: Argumentation Framework with Recursive Attacks. Int. Journal of Approximate Reasoning 52(1), 19–37 (2011)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Bench-Capon, T.J.M., Dunne, P.E.: Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Artificial Intelligence 171(10-15), 619–641 (2007)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Besnard, P., Hunter, A.: A logic-based theory of deductive arguments. Artificial Intelligence 128(1-2), 203–235 (2001)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Boella, G., Gabbay, D.M., van der Torre, L.W.N., Villata, S.: Support in abstract argumentation. In: Baroni, P., Cerutti, F., Giacomin, M., Simari, G.R. (eds.) 3rd Int. Conf. on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2010). Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 216, pp. 111–122. IOS Press (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.-C.: Bipolar abstract argumentation systems. In: Simari, G.R., Rahwan, I. (eds.) Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 65–84. Springer, US (2009)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.-C.: Bipolarity in Argumentation Graphs: Towards a Better Understanding. In: Benferhat, S., Grant, J. (eds.) SUM 2011. LNCS, vol. 6929, pp. 137–148. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  9. Cohen, A., García, A.J., Simari, G.R.: Extending DeLP with Attack and Support for Defeasible Rules. In: Kuri-Morales, A., Simari, G.R. (eds.) IBERAMIA 2010. LNCS, vol. 6433, pp. 90–99. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  10. Cohen, A., García, A.J., Simari, G.R.: Backing and Undercutting in Defeasible Logic Programming. In: Liu, W. (ed.) ECSQARU 2011. LNCS, vol. 6717, pp. 50–61. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. 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), 321–358 (1995)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. García, A.J., Simari, G.R.: Defeasible logic programming: An argumentative approach. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming (TPLP) 4(1-2), 95–138 (2004)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Modgil, S.: Reasoning about preferences in argumentation frameworks. Artificial Intelligence 173(9-10), 901–934 (2009)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Nouioua, F., Risch, V.: Argumentation Frameworks with Necessities. In: Benferhat, S., Grant, J. (eds.) SUM 2011. LNCS, vol. 6929, pp. 163–176. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  15. Pollock, J.L.: Defeasible reasoning. Cognitive Science 11(4), 481–518 (1987)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Prakken, H.: An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. Journal of Argument and Computation 1, 93–124 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Prakken, H., Vreeswijk, G.: Logics for defeasible argumentation. In: Gabbay, D., Guenthner, F. (eds.) Handbook of Philosophical Logic, vol. 4, pp. 218–319. Kluwer Academic Pub. (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Rahwan, I., Simari, G.R.: Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Toulmin, S.E.: The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press (1958)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Verheij, B.: DefLog: On the logical interpretation of prima facie justified assumptions. Journal of Logic and Computation 13(3), 319–346 (2003)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  21. Verheij, B.: Evaluating arguments based on Toulmin’s scheme. Argumentation 19(3), 347–371 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET), Universidad Nacional del Sur (UNS), Bahía Blanca, Argentina

    Andrea Cohen

  2. Artificial Intelligence Research and Development Laboratory (LIDIA), Universidad Nacional del Sur (UNS), Bahía Blanca, Argentina

    Alejandro J. García

  3. Department of Computer Science and Engineering (DCIC), Universidad Nacional del Sur (UNS), Bahía Blanca, Argentina

    Guillermo R. Simari

Authors
  1. Andrea Cohen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alejandro J. García
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Guillermo R. Simari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science, University of Oxford, Wolfson Building, Parks Road, OX1 3QD, Oxford, UK

    Thomas Lukasiewicz

  2. Alfréd Rényi Institute, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Reáltanoda utca 13-15, 1053, Budapest, Hungary

    Attila Sali

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Cohen, A., García, A.J., Simari, G.R. (2012). Backing and Undercutting in Abstract Argumentation Frameworks. In: Lukasiewicz, T., Sali, A. (eds) Foundations of Information and Knowledge Systems. FoIKS 2012. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 7153. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-28472-4_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-28472-4_7

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-28471-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-28472-4

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation