Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Undercutting in Argumentation Systems

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Scalable Uncertainty Management (SUM 2015)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 9310))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 618 Accesses

Abstract

Rule-based argumentation systems are developed for reasoning about defeasible information. They take as input a theory made of a set of strict rules, which encode strict information, and a set of defeasible rules which describe general behaviour with exceptional cases. They build arguments by chaining such rules, define attacks between them, use a semantics for evaluating the arguments, and finally identify the plausible conclusions that follow from the rules.

One of the main attack relations of such systems is the so-called undercutting which blocks the application of defeasible rules in some contexts. In this paper, we show that this relation is powerful enough to capture alone all the different conflicts in a theory. We present the first argumentation system that uses only undercutting and fully characterize both its extensions and its plausible conclusions under various acceptability semantics.

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 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
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., Besnard, P.: A formal characterization of the outcomes of rule-based argumentation systems. In: Liu, W., Subrahmanian, V.S., Wijsen, J. (eds.) SUM 2013. LNCS, vol. 8078, pp. 78–91. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  2. Amgoud, L., Caminada, M., Cayrol, C., Lagasquie, M.C., Prakken, H.: Towards a Consensual Formal Model: inference part. Deliverable of ASPIC project (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Caminada, M., Amgoud, L.: On the evaluation of argumentation formalisms. Artif. Intell. J. 171(5–6), 286–310 (2007)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  4. Caminada, M., Sá, S., Alcântara, J.: On the equivalence between logic programming semantics and argumentation semantics. In: van der Gaag, L.C. (ed.) ECSQARU 2013. LNCS, vol. 7958, pp. 97–108. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  5. Cohen, A., García, A.J., Simari, G.R.: Backing and undercutting in defeasible logic programming. In: Liu, W. (ed.) ECSQARU 2011. LNCS, vol. 6717, pp. 50–61. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. Cohen, A., García, A.J., Simari, G.R.: Backing and undercutting in abstract argumentation frameworks. In: Lukasiewicz, T., Sali, A. (eds.) FoIKS 2012. LNCS, vol. 7153, pp. 107–123. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  7. Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and \(n\)-person games. Artif. Intell. J. 77(2), 321–357 (1995)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  8. García, A.J., Simari, G.R.: Defeasible logic programming: an argumentative approach. Theor. Pract. Logic Program. 4(1–2), 95–138 (2004)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Gebser, M., Gharib, M., Mercer, R., Schaub, T.: Monotonic answer set programming. J. Logic Comput. 19(4), 539–564 (2009)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  10. Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: Classical negation in logic programs and disjunctive databases. New Gener. Comput. 9, 365–385 (1991)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Governatori, G., Maher, M.J., Antoniou, G., Billington, D.: Argumentation semantics for defeasible logic. J. Logic Comput. 14(5), 675–702 (2004)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  12. Lukaszewicz, W.: Considerations on default logic: an alternative approach. Comput. Intell. 4, 1–16 (1988)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  13. Pollock, J.L.: How to reason defeasibly. Artif. Intell. J. 57(1), 1–42 (1992)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Reiter, R.: A logic for default reasoning. Artif. Intell. J. 13(1–2), 81–132 (1980)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work benefited from the support of AMANDE ANR-13-BS02-0004 and ASPIQ ANR-12-BS02-0003 projects of the French National Research Agency.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. IRIT – CNRS, Toulouse, France

    Leila Amgoud

  2. LSIS – Aix-Marseille University, Marseille, France

    Farid Nouioua

Authors
  1. Leila Amgoud
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Farid Nouioua
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Leila Amgoud .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Fakultät für Mathematik und Informatik, FernUniversität in Hagen, Hagen, Germany

    Christoph Beierle

  2. California Polytechnic State University, SAN LUIS OBISPO, USA

    Alex Dekhtyar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this paper

Cite this paper

Amgoud, L., Nouioua, F. (2015). Undercutting in Argumentation Systems. In: Beierle, C., Dekhtyar, A. (eds) Scalable Uncertainty Management. SUM 2015. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 9310. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23540-0_18

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23540-0_18

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-23539-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-23540-0

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation