A Principle-Based Analysis of Bipolar Argumentation Semantics

[en] In this paper, we introduce and study seven types of semantics for bipolar argumentation frameworks, each extending Dung's interpretation of attack with a distinct interpretation of support. First, we introduce three types of defence-based semantics by adapting the notions of defence. Second, we examine two types of selection-based semantics that select extensions by counting the number of supports. Third, we analyse two types of traditional reduction-based semantics under deductive and necessary interpretations of support. We provide a full analysis of twenty-eight bipolar argumentation semantics and ten principles.

Disciplines :

Computer science

Author, co-author :

YU, Liuwen ; University of Luxembourg > Faculty of Science, Technology and Medicine (FSTM) > Department of Computer Science (DCS)

Caren Al Anaissy

LI, Xu ; University of Luxembourg > Faculty of Science, Technology and Medicine (FSTM) > Department of Computer Science (DCS)

Vesic, Srdjan

VAN DER TORRE, Leon ; University of Luxembourg > Faculty of Science, Technology and Medicine (FSTM) > Department of Computer Science (DCS)

External co-authors :

yes

Language :

English

Title :

A Principle-Based Analysis of Bipolar Argumentation Semantics

Publication date :

24 September 2023

Event name :

European Conference on Logics in Artificial Intelligence

Event organizer :

Sarah Alice Gagg

Event place :

TU Dresden, Germany

Event date :

20-22 September

Main work title :

Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 14281))

Publisher :

Springer

Peer reviewed :

Peer reviewed

Available on ORBilu :

since 18 April 2024

Statistics

Number of views

94 (5 by Unilu)

Number of downloads

0 (0 by Unilu)

More statistics

Scopus citations^®

Scopus citations^®
without self-citations

OpenAlex citations

Bibliography

Amgoud, L., Ben-Naim, J.: Evaluation of arguments in weighted bipolar graphs. Int. J. Approximate Reasoning 99, 39–55 (2018)
Amgoud, L., Vesic, S.: Rich preference-based argumentation frameworks. Int. J. Approximate Reasoning 55(2), 585–606 (2014)
Baroni, P., Giacomin, M.: On principle-based evaluation of extension-based argumentation semantics. Artif. Intell. 171(10–15), 675–700 (2007)
Baroni, P., Giacomin, M., Guida, G.: SCC-recursiveness: a general schema for argumentation semantics. Artif. Intell. 168(1–2), 162–210 (2005)
Baroni, P., Rago, A., Toni, F.: How many properties do we need for gradual argumentation? In: Thirty-Second AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (2018)
Baroni, P., Romano, M., Toni, F., Aurisicchio, M., Bertanza, G.: Automatic evaluation of design alternatives with quantitative argumentation. Argument Comput. 6(1), 24–49 (2015)
Baumann, R., Brewka, G., Ulbricht, M.: Comparing weak admissibility semantics to their Dung-style counterparts-reduct, modularization, and strong equivalence in abstract argumentation. In: International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, vol. 17, pp. 79–88 (2020)
Boella, G., Gabbay, D.M., van der Torre, L., Villata, S.: Support in abstract argumentation. In: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2010), pp. 40–51. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, IOS Press (2010)
Booth, R., Kaci, S., Rienstra, T., van der Torre, L.: A logical theory about dynamics in abstract argumentation. In: Liu, W., Subrahmanian, V.S., Wijsen, J. (eds.) SUM 2013. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 8078, pp. 148–161. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/9783-642-40381-1_12
Cabrio, E., Villata, S.: Node: A benchmark of natural language arguments. In: Computational Models of Argument, pp. 449–450. IOS Press (2014)
Cayrol, C., Cohen, A., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.C.: Higher-order interactions (bipolar or not) in abstract argumentation: A state of the art. In: Gabbay, D., Giacomin, M., Simari, G.R., Thimm, M. (eds.) Handbook of Formal Argumentation, vol. 2, pp. 15–130. College Publications, Norcross (2021)
Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.C.: Gradual valuation for bipolar argumentation frameworks. In: Godo, L. (ed.) ECSQARU 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3571, pp. 366–377. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/11518655_32
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). https://doi.org/10.1007/11518655_33
Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.C.: Bipolar abstract argumentation systems. In: Simari, G., Rahwan, I. (eds.) Argumentation in Artificial, pp. 65–84. Springer, Boston (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-98197-0_4
Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.C.: Bipolarity in argumentation graphs: towards a better understanding. Int. J. Approximate Reasoning 54(7), 876–899 (2013)
Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.-C.: An axiomatic approach to support in argumentation. In: Black, E., Modgil, S., Oren, N. (eds.) TAFA 2015. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 9524, pp. 74–91. Springer, Cham (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28460-6_5
Chen, W.: Aggregation of support-relations of bipolar argumentation frameworks. In: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems, pp. 1804–1806 (2020)
Cohen, A., Gottifredi, S., García, A.J., Simari, G.R.: A survey of different approaches to support in argumentation systems. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 29(5), 513–550 (2014)
Coste-Marquis, S., Konieczny, S., Marquis, P., Ouali, M.A.: Selecting extensions in weighted argumentation frameworks. COMMA 12, 342–349 (2012)
Dauphin, J., Rienstra, T., van der Torre, L.: New weak admissibility semantics for abstract argumentation. In: Baroni, P., Benzmüller, C., Wáng, Y.N. (eds.) CLAR 2021. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 13040, pp. 112–126. Springer, Cham (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3030-89391-0_7
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)
Evripidou, V., Toni, F.: Quaestio-it.com: a social intelligent debating platform. J. Decis. Syst. 23(3), 333–349 (2014)
Gargouri, A., Konieczny, S., Marquis, P., Vesic, S.: On a notion of monotonic support for bipolar argumentation frameworks. In: 20th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems (2020)
Gordon, T.F.: Towards requirements analysis for formal argumentation. In: Baroni, P., Gabbay, D., Giacomin, M., van der Torre, L. (eds.) Handbook of formal argumentation, vol. 1, pp. 145–156. College Publications, Norcross (2018)
Kaci, S., van der Torre, L., Vesic, S., Villata, S.: Preference in abstract argumentation. In: Gabbay, D., Giacomin, M., Simari, G.R., Thimm, M. (eds.) Handbook of Formal Argumentation, vol. 2, pp. 211–248. College Publications, Norcross (2021)
Konieczny, S., Marquis, P., Vesic, S.: On supported inference and extension selection in abstract argumentation frameworks. In: Destercke, S., Denoeux, T. (eds.) ECSQARU 2015. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 9161, pp. 49–59. Springer, Cham (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3319-20807-7_5
Lagasquie-Schiex, M.C.: Handling support cycles and collective interactions in the logical encoding of higher-order bipolar argumentation frameworks. J. Log. Comput. 33(2), 289– 318 (2023)
Lauren, S., Belardinelli, F., Toni, F.: Aggregating bipolar opinions. In: Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems, pp. 746– 754 (2021)
Nouioua, F., Risch, V.: Bipolar argumentation frameworks with specialized supports. In: 2010 22nd IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence, vol. 1, pp. 215–218. IEEE (2010)
Oren, N., Luck, M., Reed, C.: Moving between argumentation frameworks. In: Proceedings of the 2010 International Conference on Computational Models of Argument. IOS Press (2010)
Oren, N., Norman, T.J.: Semantics for evidence-based argumentation. In: Proceedings of the 2008 conference on Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2008, pp. 276–284 (2008)
Plug, J.: Complex argumentation in judicial decisions. Analysing conflicting arguments. In: FAPR, pp. 464–479 (1996)
Polberg, S.: Intertranslatability of abstract argumentation frameworks. Technical report, Technical Report DBAI-TR-2017-104, Institute for Information Systems (2017)
Polberg, S., Oren, N.: Revisiting support in abstract argumentation systems. In: Computational Models of Argument-Proceedings of COMMA. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 266, pp. 369–376. IOS Press (2014)
Prakken, H.: An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. Argument Comput. 1(2), 93–124 (2010)
Prakken, H.: On support relations in abstract argumentation as abstractions of inferential relations. In: ECAI 2014, pp. 735–740. IOS Press (2014)
Prakken, H.: Historical overview of formal argumentation. In: Baroni, P., Gabbay, D., Giacomin, M., van der Torre, L. (eds.) Handbook of formal argumentation, vol. 1, pp. 75–143. College Publications, Norcross (2018)
Rienstra, T., Sakama, C., van der Torre, L.: Persistence and monotony properties of argumentation semantics. In: Black, E., Modgil, S., Oren, N. (eds.) TAFA 2015. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 9524, pp. 211–225. Springer, Cham (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-284606_13
Rienstra, T., Sakama, C., van der Torre, L., Liao, B.: A principle-based robustness analysis of admissibility-based argumentation semantics. Argument Comput. 11(3), 305–339 (2020)
van der Torre, L., Vesic, S.: The principle-based approach to abstract argumentation semantics. In: Baroni, P., Gabbay, D., Giacomin, M., van der Torre, L. (eds.) Handbook of Formal Argumentation, vol. 1, pp. 797–838. College Publications, Norcross (2018)
Yu, L., Chen, D., Qiao, L., Shen, Y., van der Torre, L.: A principle-based analysis of abstract agent argumentation semantics. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, vol. 18, pp. 629–639 (2021)
Yu, L., van der Torre, L.: A principle-based approach to bipolar argumentation. In: 18th International Workshop on Non-monotinic Reasoning Notes, p. 227 (2020)