Skip to main content

Backing and Undercutting in Abstract Argumentation Frameworks

  • Conference paper

Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (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.

Keywords

  • Support Relation
  • Argumentation Framework
  • Attack Relation
  • Prefer Extension
  • Defeat 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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (Canada)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (Canada)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (Canada)
  • 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

Learn about 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)

    CrossRef  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)

    CrossRef  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)

    CrossRef  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)

    CrossRef  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

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

    CrossRef  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)

    CrossRef  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)

    CrossRef  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)

    CrossRef  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)

    CrossRef  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)

    CrossRef  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)

    CrossRef  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

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

    CrossRef  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)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

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

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

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

    CrossRef  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)

    CrossRef  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

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

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

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)