zbMATH — the first resource for mathematics

Dynamics in argumentation with single extensions: Abstraction principles and the grounded extension. (English) Zbl 1245.91015
Sossai, Claudio (ed.) et al., Symbolic and quantitative approaches to reasoning with uncertainty. 10th European conference, ECSQARU 2009, Verona, Italy, July 1–3, 2009. Proceedings. Berlin: Springer (ISBN 978-3-642-02905-9/pbk). Lecture Notes in Computer Science 5590. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, 107-118 (2009).
Summary: In this paper we consider the dynamics of abstract argumentation in Baroni and Giacomin’s framework for the evaluation of extension based argumentation semantics. Following Baroni and Giacomin, we do not consider individual approaches, but we define general principles or postulates that individual approaches may satisfy. In particular, we define abstraction principles for the attack relation, and for the arguments in the framework. We illustrate the principles on the grounded extension. In this paper we consider only principles for the single extension case, and leave the multiple extension case to further research.
For the entire collection see [Zbl 1165.68020].

91A44 Games involving topology, set theory, or logic
68T27 Logic in artificial intelligence
91A26 Rationality and learning in game theory
Full Text: DOI
[1] Baroni, P., Giacomin, M.: On principle-based evaluation of extension-based argumentation semantics. Artificial Intelligence 171(10-15), 675–700 (2007) · Zbl 1168.68559 · doi:10.1016/j.artint.2007.04.004
[2] Barringer, H., Gabbay, D.M., Woods, J.: Temporal dynamics of support and attack networks: From argumentation to zoology. In: Hutter, D., Stephan, W. (eds.) Mechanizing Mathematical Reasoning. LNCS, vol. 2605, pp. 59–98. Springer, Heidelberg (2005) · Zbl 1098.68122 · doi:10.1007/978-3-540-32254-2_5
[3] Boella, G., Kaci, S., van der Torre, L.: Dynamics in argumentation with single extensions: Attack refinement and the grounded extension (short paper). In: Proc. of 8th Int. Conf. on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2009) (2009) · Zbl 1245.91015
[4] Caminada, M.: On the issue of reinstatement in argumentation. In: Fisher, M., van der Hoek, W., Konev, B., Lisitsa, A. (eds.) JELIA 2006. LNCS, vol. 4160, pp. 111–123. Springer, Heidelberg (2006) · Zbl 1152.68600 · doi:10.1007/11853886_11
[5] Cayrol, C., de Saint Cyr Bannay, F.D., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.C.: Revision of an argumentation system. In: 11th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2008), pp. 124–134 (2008)
[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(2), 321–357 (1995) · Zbl 1013.68556 · doi:10.1016/0004-3702(94)00041-X
[7] Rotstein, N.D., Moguillansky, M.O., Garcia, A.J., Simari, G.R.: An abstract argumentation framework for handling dynamics. In: Proceedings of the Argument, Dialogue and Decision Workshop in NMR 2008, Sydney, Australia, pp. 131–139 (2008)
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.