Multi-sorted Argumentation

Rienstra, Tjitze; Perotti, Alan; Villata, Serena; Torre, Leendert van der

doi:10.1007/978-3-642-29184-5_14

Cited by 9 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They show that, for the stable semantics, extensions of an AF can be obtained by splitting the AF into two parts and computing the extensions of the two parts using a method that takes the extensions of the respective other part into account. Another related approach was introduced by Rienstra et al [39], who propose multi-sorted extensions as a new semantics of an AF with respect to a partition of the AF. A multi-sorted extension is such that its restriction to a part coincides with a given semantics for this part.…”

Section: Splitting Argumentation Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the responsibility for undecisiveness in preferred and stable labellings in abstract argumentation

Schulz

Toni

2018

Artificial Intelligence

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Different semantics of abstract Argumentation Frameworks (AFs) provide different levels of decisiveness for reasoning about the acceptability of conflicting arguments. The stable semantics is useful for applications requiring a high level of decisiveness, as it assigns to each argument the label "accepted" or the label "rejected". Unfortunately, stable labellings are not guaranteed to exist, thus raising the question as to which parts of AFs are responsible for the nonexistence. In this paper, we address this question by investigating a more general question concerning preferred labellings (which may be less decisive than stable labellings but are always guaranteed to exist), namely why a given preferred labelling may not be stable and thus undecided on some arguments. In particular, (1) we give various characterisations of parts of an AF, based on the given preferred labelling, and (2) we show that these parts are indeed responsible for the undecisiveness if the preferred labelling is not stable. We then use these characterisations to explain the non-existence of stable labellings. We present two types of characterisations, based on labellings that are more (or equally) committed than the given preferred labelling on the one hand, and based on the structure of the given AF on the other, and compare the respective AF parts deemed responsible. To prove that our characterisations indeed yield responsible parts, we use a notion of enforcement of labels through structural revision, by means of which the preferred labelling of the given AF can be turned into a stable labelling of the structurally revised AF. Rather than prescribing how this structural revision is carried out, we focus on the enforcement of labels and leave the engineering of the revision open to fulfil differing requirements of applications and information available to users.

show abstract

Section: Splitting Argumentation Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the responsibility for undecisiveness in preferred and stable labellings in abstract argumentation

Schulz

Toni

2018

Artificial Intelligence

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Moreover, we use sem ∈ {cmp, prf, grd, stb} to denote complete, preferred, grounded, or stable local functions, defined in this way in terms of the corresponding labeling semantics. We refer to the paper of Baroni et al [26,7] for further discussion.…”

Section: Labelling Semanticsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Multi-sorted argumentation [26] considers a generic argumentation framework AF = (A , R) together with an arbitrary partition of A . Such a partition identifies the restricted argumentation frameworks AF↓ P 1 , .…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This model builds on our earlier work. Multi-sorted argumentation [26] partitions the set of arguments, for example in epistemic and goal arguments, and applies different kinds of semantics to each block in the partitioning. Input/output argumentation [7] is a model of compositionality for abstract argumentation, that makes explicit how the semantics of the individual blocks can be composed into the semantics of the whole graph.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Argumentation as Exogenous Coordination

Torre

Rienstra

Gabbay

2018

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Formal argumentation is one of the most popular approaches in modern logic and reasoning. The theory of abstract argumentation introduced by Dung in 1995 has shifted the focus from the internal structure of arguments to relations among arguments, and temporal dynamics for abstract argumentation was proposed by Barringer, Gabbay and Woods in 2005. In this tradition, we see arguments as reasoning processes, and the interaction among them as a coordination process. We argue that abstract argumentation can adopt ideas and techniques from formal theories of coordination, and as an example we propose a model of sequential abstract argumentation loosely inspired by Reo's model of exogenous coordination. We show how the argumentation model can represent the temporal dynamics of the liar paradox and predator-prey like behaviour. The first author has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skodowska-Curie grant agreement No 690974 for the project MIREL: MIning and REasoning with Legal texts.

show abstract

“…Concerning our first research question, there are various ways in which abstract argumentation semantics can be combined. For example, in multi-sorted argumentation [13,1,12], one part of the framework can be evaluated according to for example grounded semantics, whereas another part of the framework is evaluated according to the preferred semantics. Another approach manipulates directly the sets of extensions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Dynamic Approach for Combining Abstract Argumentation Semantics

Dauphin

Cramer

Torre

2019

Dynamics, Uncertainty and Reasoning

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

argumentation semantics provide a direct relation from an argumentation framework to corresponding sets of acceptable arguments, or equivalently to labeling functions. Instead, we study step-wise update relations on argumentation frameworks whose fixpoints represent the labeling functions on the arguments. We make use of this dynamic approach in order to study novel ways of combining abstract argumentation semantics. In particular, we introduce the notion of a merge of two argumentation semantics, which is defined in such a way that the merge of the preferred and the grounded semantics is the complete semantics. Finally we consider how to define new semantics using the merge operator, in particular how meaningfully combine features of naive-based and complete-based semantics.

show abstract

Multi-sorted Argumentation

Cited by 9 publications

References 10 publications

On the responsibility for undecisiveness in preferred and stable labellings in abstract argumentation

On the responsibility for undecisiveness in preferred and stable labellings in abstract argumentation

Argumentation as Exogenous Coordination

A Dynamic Approach for Combining Abstract Argumentation Semantics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About