Skip to main content

AFs with Necessities: Further Semantics and Labelling Characterization

  • Conference paper
Scalable Uncertainty Management (SUM 2013)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 8078))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

The Argumentation Frameworks with Necessities (AFNs) proposed in [17] are a kind of bipolar AFs extending Dung AFs with a support relation having the particular meaning of necessity. This paper is a continuation of this work in two respects. First, we complete the acceptability semantics picture by defining the well-founded, the complete and the semi-stable semantics for AFNs. We show that the proposed semantics keep the same properties as those given for Dung AFs and represent proper generalizations of them (in absence of the necessity relation, the classical semantics are recovered). Then, we show how to generalize Caminada’s labelling algorithms in presence of a necessity relation to compute the extensions under the studied semantics for AFNs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

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

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Amgoud, L., Besnard, P.: Bridging the gap between abstract argumentation systems and logic. In: Godo, L., Pugliese, A. (eds.) SUM 2009. LNCS, vol. 5785, pp. 12–27. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  2. Amgoud, L.: Stable Semantics in Logic-Based Argumentation. In: Hüllermeier, E., Link, S., Fober, T., Seeger, B. (eds.) SUM 2012. LNCS, vol. 7520, pp. 58–71. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  3. Amgoud, L.: The Outcomes of Logic-Based Argumentation Systems under Preferred Semantics. In: Hüllermeier, E., Link, S., Fober, T., Seeger, B. (eds.) SUM 2012. LNCS, vol. 7520, pp. 72–84. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. Besnard, P., Hunter, A.: Elements of Argumentation. The MIT Press (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Boella, G., Gabbay, D.M., Van Der Torre, L., Villata, S.: Support in Abstract Argumentation. In: Proceedings of COMMA 2010, pp. 40–51 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Brewka, G., Woltran, S.: Abstract Dialectical Frameworks. In: Proceedings of KR 2012, Toronto, Canada, pp. 102–111 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Caminada, M.W.A., Carnielli, W.A., Dunne, P.E.: Semi-Stable Semantics. J. Log. Comp. 22(5), 1207–1254 (2012)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Caminada, M.W.A.: Semi-Stable Semantics. In: Proceedings of COMMA 2006, Liverpool, UK, pp. 121–130 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Caminada, M.W.A.: An Algorithm for Computing Semi-Stable Semantics. In: Mellouli, K. (ed.) ECSQARU 2007. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4724, pp. 222–234. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  10. Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.C.: On the acceptability of arguments in bipolar argumentation frameworks. In: Godo, L. (ed.) ECSQARU 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3571, pp. 378–389. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.C.: Coalitions of arguments: A tool for handling bipolar argumentation frameworks. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 25(1), 83–109 (2010)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif. Intel. 77, 321–357 (1995)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Dung, P.M., Mancarella, P., Toni, F.: Computing ideal sceptical argumentation. Artif. Intel. 171(10-15), 642–674 (2007)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Eiter, T., Leone, N., Sacca, D.: On the partial semantics for disjunctive deductive a databases. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 19(1-2), 59–96 (1997)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Gorogiannis, N., Hunter, A.: Instantiating abstract, argumentation with classical logic arguments: Postulates and properties. Artif. Intel. 175, 1479–1497 (2011)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Modgil, S., Caminada, M.W.A.: Proof Theories and Algorithms for Abstract Argumentation Frameworks. In: Rahwan, I., Simari, G. (eds.) Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 105–129 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  17. 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)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  18. Wu, Y., Caminada, M., Gabbay, D.: Complete Extensions in Argumentation Coincide with 3-Valued Stable Models in Logic Programming. Studia logica 93(2-3), 383–403 (2009)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Nouioua, F. (2013). AFs with Necessities: Further Semantics and Labelling Characterization. In: Liu, W., Subrahmanian, V.S., Wijsen, J. (eds) Scalable Uncertainty Management. SUM 2013. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 8078. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40381-1_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40381-1_10

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-40380-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-40381-1

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics