Abstract
This paper discusses how to make an argumentation framework (AF) with no stable extensions into one with a stable extension by adding a new argument, which we call ‘repair’. We remove the restrictions that were put on the target AFs in our previous work, and show a simple condition for an arbitrary AF to have no stable extensions. Then, we refine the conditions that an AF should satisfy to be repaired and identify the position where a new argument is added. We also discuss other possible repair types. The judgments are simple, easy to intuitively understand by virtue of the usage of topological features.
This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number JP17H06103.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The definition of the reduction is modified from that described in [24].
References
Baroni, P., Caminada, M., Giacomin, M.: An introduction to argumentation semantics. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 26(4), 365–410 (2011)
Baroni, P., Gabbay, D., Giacomin, M. (eds.): Handbook of Formal Argumentation. College Publications, Norcross (2018)
Baroni, P., Giacomin, M., Guida, G.: SCC-recursiveness: a general schema for argumentation semantics. Artif. Intell. 168(1–2), 162–210 (2014)
Baroni, P., Giacomin, M., Liao, B.: On topology-related properties of abstract argumentation semantics. a correction and extension to dynamics of argumentation systems: a division-based method. Artif. Intell. 212, 104–115 (2014)
Baumann, R., Brewka, G.: Extension removal in abstract argumentation - an axiomatic approach. In: AAAI 2019, pp. 2670–2677 (2019)
Baumann, R., Brewka, G.: Expanding argumentation frameworks: enforcing and monotonicity results. In: COMMA 2010, pp. 75–86 (2010)
Baumann, R., Brewka, G.: What does it take to enforce an argument? - Minimal change in abstract argumentation. In: ECAI 2012, pp. 127–132 (2012)
Baumann, R., Doutre, S., Mailly, J.G., Wallner, J.P.: Enforcement in formal argumentation. J. Appl. Log. 8(6), 1623–1678 (2021)
Baumann, R., Gabbay, D.M., Rodrigues, O.: Forgetting an argument. In: AAAI 2020, pp. 2750–2757 (2020)
Baumann, R., Ulbricht, M.: If nothing is accepted - repairing argumentation frameworks. In: KR 2018, pp. 108–117 (2018)
Baumann, R., Ulbricht, M.: On cycles, attackers and supporters - a contribution to the investigation of dynamics in abstract argumentation. In: IJCAI 2021, pp. 1780–1786 (2021)
Bench-Capon, T., Dunne, P.E.: Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Artif. Intell. 171, 10–15 (2007)
Boella, G., Kaci, S., van der Torre, L.: Dynamics in argumentation with single extensions: abstraction principles and the grounded extension. In: Sossai, C., Chemello, G. (eds.) ECSQARU 2009. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5590, pp. 107–118. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02906-6_11
Boella, G., Kaci, S., van der Torre, L.W.N.: Dynamics in argumentation with single extensions: attack refinement and the grounded extension. In: AAMAS 2009, pp. 1213–1214 (2009)
Cayrol, C., de Saint-Cyr, F.D., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.C.: Revision of an argumentation system. In: KR 2008, pp. 124–134 (2008)
Cayrol, C., de Saint-Cyr, F.D., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.C.: Change in abstract argumentation frameworks: adding an argument. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 38, 49–84 (2010)
Coste-Marquis, S., Konieczny, S., Mailly, J.G., Marquis, P.: Extension enforcement in abstract argumentation as an optimization problem. In: IJCAI 2015, pp. 2876–2882 (2015)
Doutre, S., Mailly, J.G.: Constraints and changes: a survey of abstract argumentation dynamics. Argum. Comput. 9(3), 223–248 (2018)
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)
Liao, B., Jin, L., Koons, R.C.: Dynamics of argumentation systems: a division-based method. Artif. Intell. 175(11), 1790–1814 (2011)
Rahwan, I., Simari, G.R. (eds.): Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence. Springer, New York (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-98197-0
Saribatur, Z.G., Wallner, J.P.: Existential abstraction on argumentation frameworks via clustering. In: KR 2021, pp. 549–559 (2021)
Schulz, C., Toni, F.: On the responsibility for undecisiveness in preferred and stable labellings in abstract argumentation. Artif. Intell. 262, 301–335 (2018)
Takahashi, K.: Odd or even: handling n-lemmas in a dynamic argumentation framework. In: SAFA 2022, pp. 5–18 (2022)
Takahashi, K., Okubo, T.: How can you resolve a trilemma? - A topological approach. In: Baroni, P., Benzmüller, C., Wáng, Y.N. (eds.) CLAR 2021. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 13040, pp. 397–416. Springer, Cham (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-89391-0_22
Villata, S.: Explainable, Trustable and Emphatic Artificial Intelligence from Formal Argumentation Theory to Argumentation for Humans. habilitation, Université Côte D’Azur, Habilitation thesis (2018)
Šefránek, J.: Updates of argumentation frameworks. In: NMR 2012 (2012)
Wallner, J.P., Niskanen, A., Järvisalo, M.: Complexity results and algorithms for extension enforcement in abstract argumentation. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 60, 1–40 (2017)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Takahashi, K., Miwa, H. (2023). Topological Conditions and Solutions for Repairing Argumentation Frameworks. In: Herzig, A., Luo, J., Pardo, P. (eds) Logic and Argumentation. CLAR 2023. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 14156. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-40875-5_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-40875-5_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-40874-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-40875-5
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)