[en] Multiple extensions of Dung's argumentation frameworks (AFs) have been proposed in order to model features of argumentation that cannot be directly modeled in AFs. One technique that has already previously proven useful to study and combine such extensions is the meta-argumentation methodology involving the notion of a flattening. In order to faithfully model the interaction between explanation argumentation in scientific debates, Šešelja and Straßer have introduced Explanatory Argumentation Frameworks (EAFs). In this paper, we first prove that the flattening technique works as expected for recursive (higher-order) attacks. Then we apply this technique in order to combine EAFs with multiple other extensions that have been proposed to AFs, namely with recursive attacks, joint attacks and a support relation between arguments. This gives rise to Extended Explanatory Argumentation Frameworks (EEAFs). We illustrate the applicability of EEAFs by using them to model a piece of argumentation from a research-level philosophy book.
Disciplines :
Sciences informatiques
Auteur, co-auteur :
DAUPHIN, Jérémie ; University of Luxembourg > Faculty of Science, Technology and Communication (FSTC) > Computer Science and Communications Research Unit (CSC)
CRAMER, Marcos ; University of Luxembourg > Faculty of Science, Technology and Communication (FSTC) > Computer Science and Communications Research Unit (CSC)
Co-auteurs externes :
no
Langue du document :
Anglais
Titre :
Extended Explanatory Argumentation Frameworks
Date de publication/diffusion :
2018
Nom de la manifestation :
The 2017 International Workshop on Theory and Applications of Formal Argument
Baroni, P., Boella, G., Cerutti, F., Giacomin, M., van der Torre, L., Villata, S.: On the input/output behavior of argumentation frameworks. Artif. Intell. 217, 144–197 (2014)
Baroni, P., Cerutti, F., Giacomin, M., Guida, G.: Encompassing attacks to attacks in abstract argumentation frameworks. In: Sossai, C., Chemello, G. (eds.) ECSQARU 2009. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5590, pp. 83–94. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02906-6 9
Boella, G., Gabbay, D.M., van der Torre, L., Villata, S.: Meta-argumentation modelling i: methodology and techniques. Stud. Logica 93(2–3), 297–355 (2009)
Boella, G., Gabbay, D.M., van der Torre, L., Villata, S.: Support in abstract argumentation. COMMA 216, 111–122 (2010)
Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.C.: Bipolarity in argumentation graphs: towards a better understanding. IJAR 54(7), 876–899 (2013)
Cohen, A., Gottifredi, S., García, A.J., Simari, G.R.: On the acceptability semantics of argumentation frameworks with recursive attack and support. In: Computational Models of Argument - Proceedings of COMMA 2016, pp. 231–242 (2016)
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), 321–357 (1995)
Field, H.: Saving Truth from Paradox. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2008)
