Support in Abstract Argumentation

Authors:
G. Boella;D. M. Gabbay;L. van der Torre;S. Villata
Affiliations:
University of Turin, Italy;King's College London, United Kingdom and University of Luxembourg, Luxembourg;University of Luxembourg, Luxembourg;University of Turin, Italy
Venue:
Proceedings of the 2010 conference on Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2010
Year:
2010

Citing 9
Cited 7

A logical framework for modelling legal argument

ICAIL '93 Proceedings of the 4th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law
On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games

Artificial Intelligence
On bipolarity in argumentation frameworks

International Journal of Intelligent Systems - Bipolar Representations of Information and Preference Part 2: Reasoning and Learning
Social Viewpoints for Arguing about Coalitions

PRIMA '08 Proceedings of the 11th Pacific Rim International Conference on Multi-Agents: Intelligent Agents and Multi-Agent Systems
Integrating Object and Meta-Level Value Based Argumentation

Proceedings of the 2008 conference on Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2008
Encompassing Attacks to Attacks in Abstract Argumentation Frameworks

ECSQARU '09 Proceedings of the 10th European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty
On the Acceptability of Meta-arguments

WI-IAT '09 Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Joint Conference on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology - Volume 02
Coalitions of arguments: A tool for handling bipolar argumentation frameworks

International Journal of Intelligent Systems
On the acceptability of arguments in bipolar argumentation frameworks

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

Bipolarity in argumentation graphs: towards a better understanding

SUM'11 Proceedings of the 5th international conference on Scalable uncertainty management
Argumentation frameworks with necessities

SUM'11 Proceedings of the 5th international conference on Scalable uncertainty management
Backing and undercutting in abstract argumentation frameworks

FoIKS'12 Proceedings of the 7th international conference on Foundations of Information and Knowledge Systems
Generalizing naive and stable semantics in argumentation frameworks with necessities and preferences

SUM'12 Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Scalable Uncertainty Management
A logic of argumentation for specification and verification of abstract argumentation frameworks

Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence
Modelling defeasible and prioritized support in bipolar argumentation

Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence
A socio-cognitive model of trust using argumentation theory

International Journal of Approximate Reasoning

Quantified Score

Hi-index	0.00

Visualization

Abstract

In this paper, we consider two drawbacks of Cayrol and Lagasque-Schiex's meta-argumentation theory to model bipolar argumentation frameworks. We consider first the “lost of admissibility” in Dung's sense and second, the definition of notions of attack in the context of a support relation. We show how to prevent these drawbacks by introducing support meta-arguments. Like the model of Cayrol and Lagasque-Schiex, our formalization confirms the use of meta-argumentation to reuse Dung's properties. We do not take a stance towards the usefulness of a support relation among arguments, though we show that if one would like to introduce them, it can be done without extending Dung's theory. Finally, we show how to use meta-argumentation to instantiate an argumentation framework to represent defeasible support. In this model of support, the support relation itself can be attacked.