Admissibility in the Abstract Dialectical Framework

  • Sylwia Polberg
  • Johannes Peter Wallner
  • Stefan Woltran
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8143)

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to study the concept of admissibility in abstract dialectical frameworks (ADFs). While admissibility is well-understood in Dung-style frameworks, a generalization to ADFs is not trivial. Indeed, the original proposal turned out to behave unintuitively at certain instances. A recent approach circumvented this problem by using a three-valued concept. In this paper, we propose a novel two-valued approach which more directly follows the original understanding of admissibility. We compare the two approaches and show that they behave differently on certain ADFs. Our results imply that for generalizations of Dung-style frameworks, establishing a precise correspondence between two-valued (i.e. extension-based) and three-value (i.e. labeling-based) characterizations of argumentation semantics is not easy and requires further investigations.

Keywords

abstract argumentation abstract dialectical framework admissible semantics 

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. Artif. Intell. 77, 321–357 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    McBurney, P., Parsons, S., Rahwan, I. (eds.): ArgMAS 2011. LNCS, vol. 7543. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)MATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Amgoud, L., Vesic, S.: A new approach for preference-based argumentation frameworks. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 63, 149–183 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baroni, P., Cerutti, F., Giacomin, M., Guida, G.: AFRA: Argumentation framework with recursive attacks. Int. J. Approx. Reasoning 52(1), 19–37 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.C.: Bipolarity in argumentation graphs: Towards a better understanding. Int. J. Approx. Reasoning (in Press, 2013)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. J. Log. Comput. 13(3), 429–448 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Modgil, S.: Reasoning about preferences in argumentation frameworks. Artif. Intell. 173(9-10), 901–934 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    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
  9. 9.
    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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brewka, G., Woltran, S.: Abstract Dialectical Frameworks. In: KR, pp. 102–111 (2010)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Boella, G., Gabbay, D.M., van der Torre, L., Villata, S.: Meta-argumentation modelling I: Methodology and techniques. Studia Logica 93(2-3), 297–355 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    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. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 8143, pp. 86–101. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Brewka, G., Gordon, T.F.: Carneades and Abstract Dialectical Frameworks: A Reconstruction. In: COMMA, pp. 3–12. IOS Press (2010)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Caminada, M., Amgoud, L.: On the evaluation of argumentation formalisms. Artif. Intell. 171(5-6), 286–310 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Strass, H.: Approximating operators and semantics for Abstract Dialectical Frameworks. Technical Report 1, Institute of Computer Science, Leipzig University (2013)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Brewka, G., Ellmauthaler, S., Strass, H., Wallner, J.P., Woltran, S.: Abstract Dialectical Frameworks Revisited. In: IJCAI (in Press, 2013)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kakas, A.C., Mancarella, P., Dung, P.M.: The acceptability semantics for logic programs. In: ICLP, pp. 504–519 (1994)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ellmauthaler, S.: Abstract Dialectical Frameworks: Properties, Complexity, and Implementation. Master’s thesis, Vienna University of Technology (2012)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Baroni, P., Caminada, M., Giacomin, M.: An introduction to argumentation semantics. Knowledge Eng. Review 26(4), 365–410 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Baroni, P., Giacomin, M., Guida, G.: SCC–recursiveness: a general schema for argumentation semantics. Artif. Intell. 168(12), 162–210 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Oren, N., Norman, T.J.: Semantics for evidence-based argumentation. In: COMMA, pp. 276–284 (2008)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Baroni, P., Giacomin, M.: Semantics of abstract argument systems. In: Simari, G., Rahwan, I. (eds.) Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 25–44. Springer (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sylwia Polberg
    • Johannes Peter Wallner
      • Stefan Woltran

        There are no affiliations available

        Personalised recommendations