Computing with Infinite Argumentation Frameworks: The Case of AFRAs

  • Pietro Baroni
  • Federico Cerutti
  • Paul E. Dunne
  • Massimiliano Giacomin
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7132)


In recent years a large corpus of studies has arisen from Dung’s seminal abstract model of argumentation, including several extensions aimed at increasing its expressiveness. Most of these works focus on the case of finite argumentation frameworks, leaving the potential practical applications of infinite frameworks largely unexplored. In the context of a recently proposed extension of Dung’s framework called AFRA (Argumentation Framework with Recursive Attacks), this paper makes a first step to fill this gap. It is shown that, under some reasonable restrictions, infinite frameworks admit a compact finite specification and that, on this basis, computational problems which are tractable for finite frameworks may preserve the same property in the infinite case. In particular we provide a polynomial-time algorithm to compute the finite representation of the (possibly infinite) grounded extension of an AFRA with infinite attacks. An example concerning the representation of a moral dilemma is introduced to illustrate and instantiate the proposal and gives a preliminary idea of its potential applicability.


Moral Dilemma Regular Language Attack State Argumentation Framework Splittable State 
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.
    Baroni, P., Cerutti, F., Giacomin, M., Guida, G.: An argumentation-based approach to modeling decision support contexts with what-if capabilities. In: AAAI Fall Symposium. Technical Report SS-09-06. pp. 2–7 (2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baroni, P., Cerutti, F., Giacomin, M., Guida, G.: AFRA: argumentation framework with recursive attacks. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 51(1), 19–37 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baroni, P., Cerutti, F., Dunne, P.E., Giacomin, M.: Automata for infinite argumentation structures. Technical Report, Department of Computer Science, University of Liverpool, UK (2011)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barringer, H., Gabbay, D., Woods, J.: Temporal Dynamics of Support and Attack Networks: From Argumentation to Zoology. In: Hutter, D., Stephan, W. (eds.) Mechanizing Mathematical Reasoning. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2605, pp. 59–98. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Persuasion in practical argument using value based argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation 13(3), 429–448 (2003)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    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)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dunne, P.E.: Computability Theory – concepts and applications. Ellis–Horwood (1991)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dunne, P.E., Modgil, S., Bench-Capon, T.: Computation in extended argumentation frameworks. In: Proceedings of 19th European Conference on Artificial Inteligence (ECAI 2010), Lisbon, pp. 119–124 (2010)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gabbay, D., Woods, J.: More on non-cooperation in dialogue logic. Logic Journal of IGPL 9(1), 305–323 (2001)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gabbay, D., Woods, J.: Non-cooperation in dialogue logic. Synthese 127, 161–186 (2001)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gabbay, D.: Semantics for higher level attacks in extended argumentation frames part 1: Overview. Studia Logica 93, 357–381 (2009)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hopcroft, J.E., Ullman, J.D.: Introduction to Automata Theory, Languages, and Computation. Addison-Wesley (1979)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Modgil, S.: Reasoning about preferences in argumentation frameworks. Artificial Intelligence 173(9–10), 901–934 (2009)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Walton, D., Reed, C., Macagno, F.: Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge University Press, NY (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pietro Baroni
    • 1
  • Federico Cerutti
    • 1
  • Paul E. Dunne
    • 2
  • Massimiliano Giacomin
    • 1
  1. 1.Dipartimento di Ingegneria dell’InformazioneUniversity of BresciaBresciaItaly
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of LiverpoolLiverpoolUnited Kingdom

Personalised recommendations