Article

Symmetric argumentation frameworks

Authors:

Sylvie Coste-Marquis,

Caroline Devred,

Pierre MarquisAuthors Info & Claims

ECSQARU'05: Proceedings of the 8th European conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty

Pages 317 - 328

https://doi.org/10.1007/11518655_28

Published: 06 July 2005 Publication History

Abstract

This paper is centered on the family of Dung's finite argumentation frameworks when the attacks relation is symmetric (and nonempty and irreflexive). We show that while this family does not contain any well-founded framework, every element of it is both coherent and relatively grounded. Then we focus on the acceptability problems for the various semantics introduced by Dung, yet generalized to sets of arguments. We show that only two distinct forms of acceptability are possible when the considered frameworks are symmetric. Those forms of acceptability are quite simple, but tractable; this contrasts with the general case for which all the forms of acceptability are intractable (except for the ones based on grounded or naive extensions).

References

[1]

Toulmin, S.: The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press (1958)

[2]

Prakken, A., Vreeswijk, G.: Logics for defeasible argumentation. Volume 4 of Handbook of Philosophical Logic, Second edition. Kluwer Academic Publishers (2002) 219-318

[3]

Bondarenko, A., Dung, P.M., Kowalski, R., Toni, F.: An abstract, argumentation-theoretic approach to default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 93 (1997) 63-101

[4]

Parsons, S., Sierra, C., Jennings, N.: Agents that reason and negotiate by arguing. Journal of Logic and Computation 8 (1998) 261-292

[5]

Parsons, S., Wooldrige, M., Amgoud, L.: Properties and complexity of some formal interagent dialogues. Journal of Logic and Computation 13 (2003) 348-376

[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 (1995) 321- 358

[7]

Elvang-Gøransson, M., Fox, J., Krause, P.: Dialectic reasoning with inconsistent information. In: Proceedings of the 9th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence. (1993) 114- 121

[8]

Pollock, J.: How to reason defeasibly. Artificial Intelligence 57 (1992) 1-42

[9]

Simari, G., Loui, R.: A mathematical treatment of defeasible reasoning and its implementation. Artificial Intelligence 53 (1992) 125-157

[10]

Vreeswijk, G.: Abstract argumentation systems. Artificial Intelligence 90 (1997) 225-279

[11]

Elvang-Gøransson, M., Fox, J., Krause, P.: Acceptability of arguments as logical uncertainty. In: Proceedings of the European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning and Uncertainty. (1993) 85-90

[12]

Elvang-Gøransson, M., Hunter, A.: Argumentative logics: Reasoning with classically inconsistent information. Data and Knowledge Engineering 16 (1995) 125-145

[13]

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

[14]

Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C.: On the acceptability of arguments in preference-based argumentation. In: Proceedings of the 14th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence. (1998) 1-7

[15]

Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C.: Inferring from inconsistency in preference-based argumentation frameworks. Journal of Automated Reasoning 29 (2002) 125-169

[16]

Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C.: A reasoning model based on the production of acceptable arguments. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 34 (2002) 197-215

[17]

Cayrol, C.: From non-monotonic syntax-based entailment to preference-based argumentation. In: Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning and Uncertainty. Volume 946 of Lecture Notes on Artificial Intelligence. (1995)

[18]

Cayrol, C.: On the relation between argumentation and non-monotonic coherence-based entailment. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. (1995)

[19]

Dimopoulos, Y., Nebel, B., Toni, F.: On the computional complexity of assumption-based argumentation for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 141 (2002) 57-78

[20]

Baroni, P., Giacomin, M., G.Guida: Extending abstract argumentation systems theory. Artificial Intelligence 120 (2000) 251-270

[21]

Baroni, P., Giacomin, M.: Solving semantic problems with odd-length cycles in argumentation. In: Proceedings of the 7th European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty. Volume 2711 of Lecture Notes on Artificial Intelligence. (2003) 440-451

[22]

Baroni, P., Giacomin, M.: A recursive approach to argumentation: motivation and perspectives. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning. (2004) 50-58

[23]

Cayrol, C., Doutre, S., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.C., Mengin, J.: Minimal defence: a refinement of the preferred semantics for argumentation frameworks. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning. (2002) 408-415

[24]

Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.C.: Gradual handling of contradiction in argumentation frameworks. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Information Processing and Management of Uncertainty in Knowledge-based Systems. (2002) 83-90

[25]

Dimopoulos, Y., Torres, A.: Graph theoretical structures in logic programs and default theories. Theoretical Computer Science 170 (1996) 209-244

[26]

Dunne, P., Bench-Capon, T.: Coherence in finite argument system. Artificial Intelligence 141 (2002) 187-203

[27]

Papadimitriou, C.: Computational complexity. Addison-Wesley (1994)

Cited By

Mahmood YVirtema JBarlag TNgomo A(2024)Computing Repairs Under Functional and Inclusion Dependencies via ArgumentationFoundations of Information and Knowledge Systems10.1007/978-3-031-56940-1_2(23-42)Online publication date: 8-Apr-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-031-56940-1_2
Chen W(2021)Collective Argumentation with Topological RestrictionsLogic and Argumentation10.1007/978-3-030-89391-0_5(79-93)Online publication date: 20-Oct-2021
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-030-89391-0_5
Dvořák WKönig MWoltran S(2021)Graph-Classes of Argumentation Frameworks with Collective AttacksLogics in Artificial Intelligence10.1007/978-3-030-75775-5_1(3-17)Online publication date: 17-May-2021
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-030-75775-5_1
Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Labellings and games for extended argumentation frameworks
IJCAI'09: Proceedings of the 21st International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence

Dung's abstract theory of argumentation has become established as a general framework for various species of non-monotonic reasoning, and reasoning in the presence of conflict. A Dung framework consists of arguments related by attacks, and the ...
Inferring from Inconsistency in Preference-Based Argumentation Frameworks

Argumentation is a promising approach to handle inconsistent knowledge bases, based on the justification of plausible conclusions by arguments. Because of inconsistency, however, arguments may be defeated by counterarguments (or defeaters). The problem ...
Moving Between Argumentation Frameworks
Proceedings of the 2010 conference on Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2010

Abstract argument frameworks have been used for various applications within multi-agent systems, including reasoning and negotiation. Different argument frameworks make use of different inter-argument relations and semantics to identify some subset of ...

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image Guide Proceedings

ECSQARU'05: Proceedings of the 8th European conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty

July 2005

1025 pages

ISBN:3540273263

Editor:
Lluís Godo
IIIA - CSIC, Bellaterra, Spain

Sponsors

Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia: Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia
MusicStrands, Inc: MusicStrands, Inc
Generalitat de Catalunya: Generalitat de Catalunya
IIIA-CSIC: Artificial Intelligence Research Institute
Spanish Scientific Research Council (CSIC): Spanish Scientific Research Council (CSIC)

Publisher

Springer-Verlag

Berlin, Heidelberg

Publication History

Published: 06 July 2005

Qualifiers

Article

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

30
Total Citations
View Citations
0
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)0
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

Reflects downloads up to 14 Nov 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Mahmood YVirtema JBarlag TNgomo A(2024)Computing Repairs Under Functional and Inclusion Dependencies via ArgumentationFoundations of Information and Knowledge Systems10.1007/978-3-031-56940-1_2(23-42)Online publication date: 8-Apr-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-031-56940-1_2
Chen W(2021)Collective Argumentation with Topological RestrictionsLogic and Argumentation10.1007/978-3-030-89391-0_5(79-93)Online publication date: 20-Oct-2021
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-030-89391-0_5
Dvořák WKönig MWoltran S(2021)Graph-Classes of Argumentation Frameworks with Collective AttacksLogics in Artificial Intelligence10.1007/978-3-030-75775-5_1(3-17)Online publication date: 17-May-2021
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-030-75775-5_1
Kröll MPichler RWoltran S(2017)On the complexity of enumerating the extensions of abstract argumentation frameworksProceedings of the 26th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence10.5555/3171642.3171805(1145-1152)Online publication date: 19-Aug-2017
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/3171642.3171805
Belahcene KLabreuche CMaudet NMousseau VOuerdane W(2017)A model for accountable ordinal sortingProceedings of the 26th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence10.5555/3171642.3171759(814-820)Online publication date: 19-Aug-2017
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/3171642.3171759
Dvořák WJärvisalo MWallner JWoltran S(2015)Complexity-sensitive decision procedures for abstract argumentationProceedings of the 24th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence10.5555/2832747.2832835(4173-4177)Online publication date: 25-Jul-2015
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/2832747.2832835
Strass HWallner J(2015)Analyzing the computational complexity of abstract dialectical frameworks via approximation fixpoint theoryArtificial Intelligence10.1016/j.artint.2015.05.003226:C(34-74)Online publication date: 1-Sep-2015
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.artint.2015.05.003
Strass HWallner J(2014)Analyzing the computational complexity of abstract dialectical frameworks via approximation fixpoint theoryProceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning10.5555/3031929.3031943(101-110)Online publication date: 20-Jul-2014
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/3031929.3031943
Gaggl SRudolph SThomazo M(2014)What Is a Reasonable Argumentation Semantics?Essays Dedicated to Gerhard Brewka on the Occasion of His 60th Birthday on Advances in Knowledge Representation, Logic Programming, and Abstract Argumentation - Volume 906010.1007/978-3-319-14726-0_21(309-324)Online publication date: 1-Nov-2014
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-319-14726-0_21
Hunter AWoltran S(2013)Structural properties for deductive argument systemsProceedings of the 12th European conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty10.1007/978-3-642-39091-3_24(278-289)Online publication date: 8-Jul-2013
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-642-39091-3_24
Show More Cited By

View Options

View options

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Table of Contents