Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Principle-Based Analysis of Bipolar Argumentation Semantics

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Logics in Artificial Intelligence (JELIA 2023)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 14281))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

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 full analysis of twenty-eight bipolar argumentation semantics and ten principles.

L. Yu and C. Al Anaissy—Contributed equally to this work.

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 EPUB and 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

References

  1. Amgoud, L., Ben-Naim, J.: Evaluation of arguments in weighted bipolar graphs. Int. J. Approximate Reasoning 99, 39–55 (2018)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Amgoud, L., Vesic, S.: Rich preference-based argumentation frameworks. Int. J. Approximate Reasoning 55(2), 585–606 (2014)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Baroni, P., Giacomin, M.: On principle-based evaluation of extension-based argumentation semantics. Artif. Intell. 171(10–15), 675–700 (2007)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Baroni, P., Giacomin, M., Guida, G.: SCC-recursiveness: a general schema for argumentation semantics. Artif. Intell. 168(1–2), 162–210 (2005)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Baroni, P., Rago, A., Toni, F.: How many properties do we need for gradual argumentation? In: Thirty-Second AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  6. 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)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. 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)

    Google Scholar 

  8. 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)

    Google Scholar 

  9. 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/10.1007/978-3-642-40381-1_12

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  10. Cabrio, E., Villata, S.: Node: A benchmark of natural language arguments. In: Computational Models of Argument, pp. 449–450. IOS Press (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  11. 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)

    Google Scholar 

  12. 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

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. 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

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. 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

  15. Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.C.: Bipolarity in argumentation graphs: towards a better understanding. Int. J. Approximate Reasoning 54(7), 876–899 (2013)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. 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

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. 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)

    Google Scholar 

  18. 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Coste-Marquis, S., Konieczny, S., Marquis, P., Ouali, M.A.: Selecting extensions in weighted argumentation frameworks. COMMA 12, 342–349 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  20. 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/10.1007/978-3-030-89391-0_7

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  21. 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)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  22. Evripidou, V., Toni, F.: Quaestio-it.com: a social intelligent debating platform. J. Decis. Syst. 23(3), 333–349 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 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)

    Google Scholar 

  24. 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)

    Google Scholar 

  25. 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)

    Google Scholar 

  26. 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/10.1007/978-3-319-20807-7_5

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  27. 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)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  28. 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)

    Google Scholar 

  29. 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)

    Google Scholar 

  30. 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)

    Google Scholar 

  31. 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)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Plug, J.: Complex argumentation in judicial decisions. Analysing conflicting arguments. In: FAPR, pp. 464–479 (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  33. Polberg, S.: Intertranslatability of abstract argumentation frameworks. Technical report, Technical Report DBAI-TR-2017-104, Institute for Information Systems (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  34. 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)

    Google Scholar 

  35. Prakken, H.: An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. Argument Comput. 1(2), 93–124 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Prakken, H.: On support relations in abstract argumentation as abstractions of inferential relations. In: ECAI 2014, pp. 735–740. IOS Press (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  37. 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)

    Google Scholar 

  38. 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/10.1007/978-3-319-28460-6_13

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  39. 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 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)

    Google Scholar 

  41. 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)

    Google Scholar 

  42. 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)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We extend our gratitude to all the anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments. Caren Al Anaissy and Srdjan Vesic benefited from the support of the project AGGREEY (ANR-22-CE23-0005) from the French National Research Agency (ANR). Xu Li and Leendert van der Torre are financially supported by Luxembourg’s National Research Fund (FNR) through the project Deontic Logic for Epistemic Rights (OPEN O20/14776480). Leendert van der Torre is also financially supported by the (Horizon 2020 funded) CHIST-ERA grant CHIST-ERA19-XAI (G.A.INTER/CHIST/19/14589586). Liuwen Yu received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie ITN EJD grant agreement. No 814177.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Luxembourg, Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg

    Liuwen Yu, Xu Li & Leendert van der Torre

  2. CRIL Université d’Artois & CNRS, Lens, France

    Caren Al Anaissy

  3. CRIL CNRS Univ. Artois, Lens, France

    Srdjan Vesic

Authors
  1. Liuwen Yu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Caren Al Anaissy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Srdjan Vesic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Xu Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Leendert van der Torre
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Liuwen Yu , Caren Al Anaissy or Srdjan Vesic .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. TU Dresden, Dresden, Germany

    Sarah Gaggl

  2. Artificial Intelligence Research Institute - IIIA CSIC, Barcelona, Spain

    Maria Vanina Martinez

  3. Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden

    Magdalena Ortiz

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Yu, L., Al Anaissy, C., Vesic, S., Li, X., van der Torre, L. (2023). A Principle-Based Analysis of Bipolar Argumentation Semantics. In: Gaggl, S., Martinez, M.V., Ortiz, M. (eds) Logics in Artificial Intelligence. JELIA 2023. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 14281. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-43619-2_15

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-43619-2_15

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-43618-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-43619-2

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation