Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Gradual Valuation for Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks

  • Conference paper
Book cover Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty (ECSQARU 2005)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 3571))

Abstract

In this paper, we extend the abstract argumentation framework proposed by [1] in order to take into account two kinds of interaction between arguments: a positive interaction (an argument can help, support another argument) and a negative interaction (an argument can attack another argument). In this new abstract argumentation framework, called a bipolar argumentation framework, we propose a gradual interaction-based valuation process. With this process, the value of each argument A only depends on the value of the arguments which are directly interacting with A in the argumentation system.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence 77, 321–357 (1995)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  2. Fox, J., Parsons, S.: On using arguments for reasoning about values and actions. In: Proc. of AAAI-Symposium on qualitative preferences in deliberation and practical reasoning, pp. 55–63 (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Parsons, S.: Normative argumentation and qualitative probability. In: Nonnengart, A., Kruse, R., Ohlbach, H.J., Gabbay, D.M. (eds.) FAPR 1997 and ECSQARU 1997. LNCS, vol. 1244, pp. 466–480. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. Amgoud, L., Maudet, N., Parsons, S.: Arguments, Dialogue and Negociation. In: Proc. of the 14th ECAI, pp. 338–342 (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Parsons, S., Sierra, C., Jennings, N.R.: Agents that reason and negociate by arguing. Journal of Logic and Computation 8, 261–292 (1998)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  6. Karacapilidis, N., Papadias, D.: Computer supported argumentation and collaborative decision making: the hermes system. Information systems 26, 259–277 (2001)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Gordon, T., Karacapilidis, N.: The zeno argumentation framework. In: Proc. of the 6th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pp. 10–18 (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Verheij, B.: On the existence and multiplicity of extension in dialectical argumentation. In: Proc. of the 9th NMR, pp. 416–425 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Amgoud, L., Maudet, N., Parsons, S.: Modelling dialogues using argumentation. In: Proc. of the 4th ICMAS, pp. 31–38 (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Amgoud, L., Prade, H.: Reaching agreement through argumentation: A possibilistic approach. In: Proc. of the 9th KR (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Kraus, S., Sycara, K., Evenchik, A.: Reaching agreements through argumentation: a logical model and implementation. Journal of Artificial Intelligence 104 (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Rahwan, I., Ramchurn, S.D., Jennings, N.R., McBurney, P., Parsons, S., Sonenberg, L.: Argumentation-based negotiation. Knowledge engineering review (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Ramchurn, S.D., Jennings, N., Sierra, C.: Persuasive negotiation for autonomous agents: a rhetorical approach. In: CMNA (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Rahwan, I., Sonenberg, L., Dignum, F.: Towards interest-based negotiation. In: AAMAS 2003 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Jakobovits, H., Vermeir, D.: Robust semantics for argumentation frameworks. Journal of logic and computation 9(2), 215–261 (1999)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  16. Besnard, P., Hunter, A.: A logic-based theory of deductive arguments. Artificial Intelligence 128(1-2), 203–235 (2001)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  17. Pollock, J.L.: Defeasible reasoning with variable degrees of justification. Artificial Intelligence 133, 233–282 (2001)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  18. Hunter, A.: Making argumentation more believable. In: Proc. of AAAI 2004 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C.: Inferring from inconsistency in preference-based argumentation frameworks. Journal of Automated Reasoning 29, 125–169 (2002)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  20. Bench-Capon, T.: Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation 13, 429–448 (2003)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  21. Simari, G., Loui, R.: A mathematical treatment of defeasible reasoning and its implementation. Artificial Intelligence 53, 125–157 (1992)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  22. Geffner, H., Pearl, J.: Conditional entailment: bridging two approaches to default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 53, 209–244 (1992)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  23. Elvang-Goransson, M., Fox, J., Krause, P.: Dialectic reasoning with inconsistent information. In: Proc. of the 9th UAI, pp. 114–121 (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Benferhat, S., Dubois, D., Prade, H.: Argumentative inference in uncertain and inconsistent knowledge bases. In: Proc. of the 9th UAI, pp. 411–419 (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Dung, P.M., Son, T.C.: An argument-based approach to reasoning with specificity. Artificial Intelligence 133, 35–85 (2001)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  26. Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: Argument-based extended logic programming with defeasible priorities. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 7, 25–75 (1997)

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  27. Kowalski, R.A., Toni, F.: Abstract argumentation. Artificial Intelligence and Law 4, 275–296 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Krause, P., Ambler, S., Elvang, M., Fox, J.: A logic of argumentation for reasoning under uncertainty. Computational Intelligence 11(1), 113–131 (1995)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  29. Kohlas, J., Haenni, R., Berzati, D.: Probabilistic argumentation systems and abduction. In: Proc. of the 8th NMR - Uncertainty Frameworks subworkshop, pp. 391–398 (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Pollock, J.L.: How to reason defeasibly. Artificial Intelligence 57, 1–42 (1992)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  31. Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.C.: On the bipolarity in argumentation frameworks. In: Proc. of the 10th NMR, Uncertainty Framework subworkshop, pp. 1–9 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Boutilier, C.: Towards a logic for qualitative decision theory. In: Proc. of the 4th KR, pp. 75–86 (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  33. Tan, S.W., Pearl, J.: Specification and evaluation of preferences under uncertainty. In: Proc. of the 4th KR, pp. 530–539 (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  34. Lang, J., Van der Torre, L., Weydert, E.: Utilitarian desires. Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agents Systems 5(3), 329–363 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Benferhat, S., Dubois, D., Kaci, S., Prade, H.: Bipolar representation and fusion of preferences in the possibilistic logic framework. In: Proc. of the 8th KR, pp. 158–169 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  36. Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.C.: Gradual handling of contradiction in argumentation frameworks. In: Intelligent Systems for Information Processing: From representation to Applications, pp. 179–190. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  37. Amgoud, L.: Contribution à l’intégration des préférences dans le raisonnement argumentatif. PhD thesis, Université Paul Sabatier, Toulouse (1999)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. IRIT, Université Paul Sabatier, Toulouse

    C. Cayrol & M. C. Lagasquie-Schiex

Authors
  1. C. Cayrol
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. C. Lagasquie-Schiex
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. IIIA - CSIC, 08193, Bellaterra, Spain

    Lluís Godo

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2005 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.C. (2005). Gradual Valuation for Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks. In: Godo, L. (eds) Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty. ECSQARU 2005. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 3571. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/11518655_32

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/11518655_32

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-27326-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-31888-0

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation