×

zbMATH — the first resource for mathematics

On the input/output behavior of argumentation frameworks. (English) Zbl 1408.68134
Summary: This paper tackles the fundamental questions arising when looking at argumentation frameworks as interacting components, characterized by an Input/Output behavior, rather than as isolated monolithical entities. This modeling stance arises naturally in some application contexts, like multi-agent systems, but, more importantly, has a crucial impact on several general application-independent issues, like argumentation dynamics, argument summarization and explanation, incremental computation, and inter-formalism translation. Pursuing this research direction, the paper introduces a general modeling approach and provides a comprehensive set of theoretical results putting the intuitive notion of Input/Output behavior of argumentation frameworks on a solid formal ground. This is achieved by combining three main ingredients. First, several novel notions are introduced at the representation level, notably those of argumentation framework with input, of argumentation multipole, and of replacement of multipoles within a traditional argumentation framework. Second, several relevant features of argumentation semantics are identified and formally characterized. In particular, the canonical local function provides an input-aware semantics characterization and a suite of decomposability properties are introduced, concerning the correspondences between semantics outcomes at global and local level. The third ingredient glues the former ones, as it consists of the investigation of some semantics-dependent properties of the newly introduced entities, namely S-equivalence of multipoles, S-legitimacy and S-safeness of replacements, and transparency of a semantics with respect to replacements. Altogether they provide the basis and draw the limits of sound interchangeability of multipoles within traditional frameworks. The paper develops an extensive analysis of all the concepts listed above, covering seven well-known literature semantics and taking into account various, more or less constrained, ways of partitioning an argumentation framework. Diverse examples, taken from the literature, are used to illustrate the application of the results obtained and, finally, an extensive discussion of the related literature is provided.

MSC:
68T27 Logic in artificial intelligence
Software:
AFRA
PDF BibTeX XML Cite
Full Text: DOI
References:
[1] Atkinson, K., Introduction to special issue on modelling Popov v. hayashi, Artif. Intell. Law, 20, 1, 1-14, (2012)
[2] Baroni, P.; Boella, G.; Cerutti, F.; Giacomin, M.; van der Torre, L. W.N.; Villata, S., On input/output argumentation frameworks, (Proc. of the 4th Int. Conf. on Computational Models of Argument, COMMA 2012, (2012)), 358-365
[3] Baroni, P.; Caminada, M.; Giacomin, M., An introduction to argumentation semantics, Knowl. Eng. Rev., 26, 4, 365-410, (2011)
[4] Baroni, P.; Cerutti, F.; Giacomin, M.; Guida, G., Encompassing attacks to attacks in abstract argumentation frameworks, (Proc. of the 10th European Conf. on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty, ECSQARU 2009, (2009)), 83-94 · Zbl 1203.68198
[5] Baroni, P.; Cerutti, F.; Giacomin, M.; Guida, G., AFRA: argumentation framework with recursive attacks, Int. J. Approx. Reason., 52, 1, 19-37, (2011) · Zbl 1211.68433
[6] Baroni, P.; Dunne, P. E.; Giacomin, M., On the resolution-based family of abstract argumentation semantics and its grounded instance, Artif. Intell., 175, 3-4, 791-813, (2011) · Zbl 1216.68255
[7] Baroni, P.; Giacomin, M., Solving semantic problems with odd-length cycles in argumentation, (Proc. of the 7th European Conf. on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty, ECSQARU 2003, (2003)), 440-451 · Zbl 1274.68453
[8] Baroni, P.; Giacomin, M., On principle-based evaluation of extension-based argumentation semantics, Artif. Intell., 171, 10/15, 675-700, (2007), (Special issue on Argumentation in A.I.) · Zbl 1168.68559
[9] Baroni, P.; Giacomin, M., Skepticism relations for comparing argumentation semantics, Int. J. Approx. Reason., 50, 6, 854-866, (2009) · Zbl 1191.68671
[10] Baroni, P.; Giacomin, M.; Guida, G., SCC-recursiveness: a general schema for argumentation semantics, J. Artif. Intell., 168, 1-2, 165-210, (2005) · Zbl 1132.68765
[11] Baroni, P.; Giacomin, M.; Liao, B., On topology-related properties of abstract argumentation semantics. A correction and extension to dynamics of argumentation systems: a division-based method, Artif. Intell., 212, 104-115, (2014) · Zbl 1405.68337
[12] Baumann, R., Normal and strong expansion equivalence for argumentation frameworks, Artif. Intell., 193, 18-44, (2012) · Zbl 1270.68280
[13] Baumann, R., What does it take to enforce an argument? minimal change in abstract argumentation, (Proc. of the 20th European Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, ECAI 2012, (2012)), 127-132 · Zbl 1327.68266
[14] Baumann, R.; Brewka, G., Analyzing the equivalence zoo in abstract argumentation, (Proc. of the 14th Int. Workshop on Computational Logic in Multi-Agent Systems, CLIMA XIV, (2013)), 18-33 · Zbl 1401.68300
[15] Baumann, R.; Brewka, G.; Dvorák, W.; Woltran, S., Parameterized splitting: a simple modification-based approach, (Erdem, E.; Lee, J.; Lierler, Y.; Pearce, D., Correct Reasoning - Essays on Logic-Based AI in Honour of Vladimir Lifschitz, Lect. Notes Comput. Sci., vol. 7265, (2012), Springer), 57-71 · Zbl 1357.68026
[16] Baumann, R.; Brewka, G.; Wong, R., Splitting argumentation frameworks: an empirical evaluation, (Theory and Applications of Formal Argumentation - First Int. Workshop, TAFA 2011, Revised Selected Papers, Lect. Notes Comput. Sci., vol. 7132, (2011), Springer), 17-31
[17] Baumann, Ringo, Splitting an argumentation framework, (Proc. of LPNMR 2011 11th Int. Conf. on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning, (2011)), 40-53 · Zbl 1327.68240
[18] Boella, G.; Gabbay, D. M.; van der Torre, L.; Villata, S., Meta-argumentation modelling i: methodology and techniques, Stud. Log., 93, 2-3, 297-355, (2009) · Zbl 1185.68664
[19] Booth, R.; Kaci, S.; Rienstra, T.; van der Torre, L. W.N., Conditional acceptance functions, (Proc. of the 4th Int. Conf. on Computational Models of Argument, COMMA 2012, (2012)), 470-477
[20] Brewka, G.; Woltran, S., Abstract dialectical frameworks, (Proc. of the 12th Int. Conf. on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, KR 2010, (2010)), 102-111
[21] Caminada, M. W.A., On the issue of reinstatement in argumentation, (Proc. of the 10th European Conference on Logics in Artificial Intelligence, JELIA 2006, (2006)), 111-123 · Zbl 1152.68600
[22] Caminada, M. W.A.; Pigozzi, Gabriella, On judgment aggregation in abstract argumentation, Auton. Agents Multi-Agent Syst., 22, 1, 64-102, (2011)
[23] Cerutti, F.; Giacomin, M.; Vallati, M.; Zanella, M., A SCC recursive meta-algorithm for computing preferred labellings in abstract argumentation, (Proc. of the 14th Int. Conf. on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, KR 2014, (2014)), 42-51
[24] Coste-Marquis, S.; Devred, C.; Marquis, P., Prudent semantics for argumentation frameworks, (Proc. of the 17th IEEE International Conf. on Tools with Artificial Intelligence, ICTAI 2005, (2005), IEEE Computer Society Hong Kong, China), 568-572
[25] Dung, P. M., On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games, Artif. Intell., 77, 321-357, (1995) · Zbl 1013.68556
[26] Dunne, P. E.; Hunter, A.; McBurney, P.; Parsons, S.; Wooldridge, M., Weighted argument systems: basic definitions, algorithms, and complexity results, Artif. Intell., 175, 2, 457-486, (2011) · Zbl 1216.68261
[27] Dvorák, W.; Woltran, S., On the intertranslatability of argumentation semantics, J. Artif. Intell. Res., 41, 445-475, (2011) · Zbl 1234.68369
[28] Gabbay, D. M., Fibring argumentation frames, Stud. Log., 93, 2-3, 231-295, (2009) · Zbl 1185.68670
[29] Gabbay, D. M., Semantics for higher level attacks in extended argumentation frames part 1: overview, Stud. Log., 93, 2-3, 357-381, (2009) · Zbl 1185.68669
[30] Gaggl, S. A.; Dvorák, W., Stage semantics and the SCC-recursive schema for argumentation semantics, J. Log. Comput., (2014), in press · Zbl 1354.68252
[31] Janhunen, T.; Oikarinen, E.; Tompits, H.; Woltran, S., Modularity aspects of disjunctive stable models, J. Artif. Intell. Res., 35, 813-857, (2009) · Zbl 1192.68129
[32] Liao, B.; Huang, H., Partial semantics of argumentation: basic properties and empirical results, J. Log. Comput., 23, 3, 541-562, (2013) · Zbl 1267.68225
[33] Liao, B.; Jin, L.; Koons, R. C., Dynamics of argumentation systems: a division-based method, Artif. Intell., 175, 1790-1814, (2011) · Zbl 1226.68101
[34] Lifschitz, V.; Pearce, D.; Valverde, A., Strongly equivalent logic programs, ACM Trans. Comput. Log., 2, 4, 526-541, (2001) · Zbl 1365.68149
[35] Modgil, S., Reasoning about preferences in argumentation frameworks, Artif. Intell., 173, 9-10, 901-934, (2009) · Zbl 1192.68663
[36] Modgil, S.; Bench-Capon, T. J.M., Integrating object and meta-level value based argumentation, (Proc. of the 2nd Int. Conf. on Computational Models of Argument, COMMA 2008, (2008)), 240-251
[37] Oikarinen, E.; Janhunen, T., Modular equivalence for normal logic programs, (Proc. of the 17th European Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, ECAI 2006, (2006)), 412-416
[38] Oikarinen, E.; Woltran, S., Characterizing strong equivalence for argumentation frameworks, Artif. Intell., 175, 1985-2009, (2011) · Zbl 1252.68279
[39] Prakken, H., Reconstructing Popov v. hayashi in a framework for argumentation with structured arguments and Dungean semantics, Artif. Intell. Law, 20, 1, 57-82, (2012)
[40] Rienstra, T.; Perotti, A.; Villata, S.; Gabbay, D.; van Der Torre, L.; Boella, G., Multi-sorted argumentation frameworks, (Theory and Applications of Formal Argumentation - First Int. Workshop (TAFA 2011). Revised Selected Papers, Lect. Notes Comput. Sci., vol. 7132, (2011), Springer), 231-245
[41] Verheij, B., Two approaches to dialectical argumentation: admissible sets and argumentation stages, (Proc. of the Eighth Dutch Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, NAIC’96, (1996)), 357-368
[42] Verheij, B., Two approaches to dialectical argumentation: admissible sets and argumentation stages, (Proc. of the Eighth Dutch Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, NAIC’96, Utrecht, NL, (1996)), 357-368
[43] Villata, S.; Boella, G.; van Der Torre, L., Argumentation patterns, (Proc. of ARGMAS 2011 8th Int. Workshop on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems, (2011)), 133-150
[44] Wyner, A. Z.; Bench-Capon, T. J.M., Argument schemes for legal case-based reasoning, (Proc. of the 20th Annual Conf. on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems, JURIX 2007, (2007)), 139-149
This reference list is based on information provided by the publisher or from digital mathematics libraries. Its items are heuristically matched to zbMATH identifiers and may contain data conversion errors. It attempts to reflect the references listed in the original paper as accurately as possible without claiming the completeness or perfect precision of the matching.