Abstract
Agents engage in dialogues having as goals to make some arguments acceptable or unacceptable. To do so they may put forward arguments, adding them to the argumentation framework. Argumentation semantics can relate a change in the framework to the resulting extensions but it is not clear, given an argumentation framework and a desired acceptance state for a given set of arguments, which further arguments should be added in order to achieve those justification statuses. Our methodology, called conditional labelling, is based on argument labelling and assigns to each argument three propositional formulae. These formulae describe which arguments should be attacked by the agent in order to get a particular argument in, out, or undecided, respectively. Given a conditional labelling, the agents have a full knowledge about the consequences of the attacks they may raise on the acceptability of each argument without having to recompute the overall labelling of the framework for each possible set of attack they may raise.
Keywords
- Belief Revision
- Abstract Argumentation
- Propositional Formula
- Argumentation Framework
- Dialogue Game
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
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Amgoud, L., Hameurlain, N.: A formal model for designing dialogue strategies. In: Nakashima, H., Wellman, M.P., Weiss, G., Stone, P. (eds.) Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS), pp. 414–416. ACM (2006)
Booth, R., Caminada, M., Podlaszewski, M., Rahwan, I.: Quantifying disagreement in argument-based reasoning. In: International Workshop on the Theory and Applications of Formal Argumentation (TAFA), Barcelona, Spain (2011)
Caminada, M.: On the Issue of Reinstatement in Argumentation. In: Fisher, M., van der Hoek, W., Konev, B., Lisitsa, A. (eds.) JELIA 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4160, pp. 111–123. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)
Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif. Intell. 77(2), 321–358 (1995)
Jakobovits, H., Vermeir, D.: Robust semantics for argumentation frameworks. J. Log. Comput. 9(2), 215–261 (1999)
Prakken, H.: Coherence and flexibility in dialogue games for argumentation. J. Log. Comput. 15(6), 1009–1040 (2005)
Roth, B., Riveret, R., Rotolo, A., Governatori, G.: Strategic argumentation: a game theoretical investigation. In: International Conference on AI and Law (ICAIL), pp. 81–90. ACM (2007)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Boella, G., Gabbay, D.M., Perotti, A., van der Torre, L., Villata, S. (2012). Conditional Labelling for Abstract Argumentation. In: Modgil, S., Oren, N., Toni, F. (eds) Theorie and Applications of Formal Argumentation. TAFA 2011. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 7132. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-29184-5_15
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-29184-5_15
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-29183-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-29184-5
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)
