Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Enforcement in Argumentation Is a Kind of Update

  • 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

In the literature, enforcement consists in changing an argumentation system in order to force it to accept a given set of arguments. In this paper, we extend this notion by allowing incomplete information about the initial argumentation system. Generalized enforcement is an operation that maps a propositional formula describing a system and a propositional formula that describes a goal, to a new formula describing the possible resulting systems. This is done under some constraints about the allowed changes. We give a set of postulates restraining the class of enforcement operators and provide a representation theorem linking them to a family of proximity relations on argumentation systems.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
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. Alchourrón, C., Gärdenfors, P., Makinson, D.: On the logic of theory change: partial meet contraction and revision functions. Journal of Symbolic Logic 50, 510–530 (1985)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Baumann, R.: What does it take to enforce an argument? minimal change in abstract argumentation. In: ECAI, pp. 127–132 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Baumann, R., Brewka, G.: Expanding argumentation frameworks: Enforcing and monotonicity results. In: Proc. of COMMA, pp. 75–86. IOS Press (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bisquert, P., Cayrol, C., de Saint Cyr, F.D., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.C.: Axiomatic approach of enforcement in argumentation. Tech. rep., IRIT, Toulouse, France (2013), ftp://ftp.irit.fr/pub/IRIT/ADRIA/rap-IRIT-2013-24.pdf

  5. Bisquert, P., Cayrol, C., de Saint-Cyr, F.D., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.-C.: Change in argumentation systems: Exploring the interest of removing an argument. In: Benferhat, S., Grant, J. (eds.) SUM 2011. LNCS, vol. 6929, pp. 275–288. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. Bisquert, P., Cayrol, C., de Saint-Cyr, F.D., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.-C.: Duality between Addition and Removal. In: Greco, S., Bouchon-Meunier, B., Coletti, G., Fedrizzi, M., Matarazzo, B., Yager, R.R. (eds.) IPMU 2012, Part I. CCIS, vol. 297, pp. 219–229. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  7. 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)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. Boella, G., Kaci, S., van der Torre, L.: Dynamics in argumentation with single extensions: Attack refinement and the grounded extension. In: Proc. of AAMAS, pp. 1213–1214 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Cayrol, C., de Saint-Cyr, F.D., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.-C.: Change in abstract argumentation frameworks: Adding an argument. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 38, 49–84 (2010)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. Cordier, M.-O., Siegel, P.: Prioritized transitions for updates. In: Froidevaux, C., Kohlas, J. (eds.) ECSQARU 1995. LNCS, vol. 946, pp. 142–150. Springer, Heidelberg (1995)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. Coste-Marquis, S., Devred, C., Marquis, P.: Constrained argumentation frameworks. In: Proc. of KR, pp. 112–122 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Dubois, D., de Saint-Cyr, F.D., Prade, H.: Update postulates without inertia. In: Froidevaux, C., Kohlas, J. (eds.) ECSQARU 1995. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 946, pp. 162–170. Springer, Heidelberg (1995)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. Dung, P.: 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)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Herzig, A.: On updates with integrity constraints. In: Belief Change in Rational Agents (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Herzig, A., Rifi, O.: Propositional belief base update and minimal change. Artificial Intelligence 115, 107–138 (1999)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Katsuno, H., Mendelzon, A.: On the difference between updating a knowledge base and revising it. In: Proc. of KR, pp. 387–394 (1991)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Liao, B., Jin, L., Koons, R.: Dynamics of argumentation systems: A division-based method. Artificial Intelligence 175(11), 1790 (2011)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Moguillansky, M.O., Rotstein, N.D., Falappa, M.A., García, A.J., Simari, G.R.: Argument theory change through defeater activation. In: Proc. of COMMA, pp. 359–366. IOS Press (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Winslett, M.: Reasoning about action using a possible models approach. In: Proc. of AAAI, pp. 89–93 (1988)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. IRIT - UPS, Toulouse, France

    Pierre Bisquert, Claudette Cayrol, Florence Dupin de Saint-Cyr & Marie-Christine Lagasquie-Schiex

Authors
  1. Pierre Bisquert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Claudette Cayrol
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Florence Dupin de Saint-Cyr
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Marie-Christine Lagasquie-Schiex
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Electronics, Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Queen’s University Belfast, BT9 5BN, Belfast, UK

    Weiru Liu

  2. Department of Computer Science, University of Maryland, 20742, College Park, MD, USA

    V. S. Subrahmanian

  3. Département d’Informatique, Université de Mons, 7000, Mons, Belgium

    Jef Wijsen

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Bisquert, P., Cayrol, C., de Saint-Cyr, F.D., Lagasquie-Schiex, MC. (2013). Enforcement in Argumentation Is a Kind of Update. 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_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40381-1_3

  • 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

Search

Navigation