Rewriting Rules for the Computation of Goal-Oriented Changes in an Argumentation System

Kontarinis, Dionysios; Bonzon, Elise; Maudet, Nicolas; Perotti, Alan; Torre, Leendert van der; Villata, Serena

doi:10.1007/978-3-642-40624-9_4

Cited by 6 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, we plan to investigate how different revision operators from the literature (e.g. [44,45,46,43]) can be combined with our characterisations.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

“…Furthermore, we plan to investigate how different revision operators from the literature (e.g. [44,45,46,43]) can be combined with our characterisations.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Coste-Marquis et al [43] introduce a whole family of revision operators that can be used for enforcement, generalising revision operators defined by others, e.g. [44,45,46]. Other authors [47,48,49] study enforcements as logical formulae to be satisfied through structural change.…”

Section: Dynamics In 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

“…In Kontarinis et al [53], the setting is a dialogue between agents, where each of them has a goal expressed in term of acceptance statuses of some arguments. The aim is to define which move (so which addition or removal of argument or attack) should be played to ensure that the agent will reach her goal.…”

Section: Other Kinds Of Approachesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Constraints and changes: A survey of abstract argumentation dynamics

Doutre

Mailly

2018

AAC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper addresses the issue of the dynamic enforcement of a constraint in an argumentation system. The system consists in (1) an argumentation framework, made up, notably, of a set of arguments and of an attack relation, (2) an evaluation semantics, and (3) the evaluation result, computed from (1) and (2). An agent may want another agent to consider a new attack, or to have a given argument accepted, or even to relax the definition of the semantics. A constraint on any of the three components is thus defined, and it has to be enforced in the system. The enforcement may result in changes on components of the system. The paper surveys existing approaches for the dynamic enforcement of a constraint and its consequences, and reveals challenging enforcement cases that remain to be investigated.

show abstract

“…Kontarinis, Bonzon, Maudet, Perotti, van der Torre, and Villata [49] study how agents can contribute to a debate in order to reach a goal of accepting or rejecting a specified argument of their interest. The paper focuses on the minimal changes or target sets that are required to achieve the goal, in terms of the revision operations of addition or deletion of attacks.…”

Section: Dynamic Argument Aggregationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Collective argumentation: A survey of aggregation issues around argumentation frameworks

Bodanza

Tohmé

Auday

2017

AAC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Dung's argumentation frameworks have been applied for over twenty years to the analysis of argument justification. This representation focuses on arguments and the attacks among them, abstracting away from other features like the internal structure of arguments, the nature of utterers, the specifics of the attack relation, etc. The model is highly attractive because it reduces most of the complexities involved in argumentation processes. It can be applied to different settings, like the argument evaluation of an individual agent or the case of dialectic disputes between two agents (pro and con), or even in multi-agent collective argumentation. The latter case involves agents with possibly different arguments and/or opinions on how to evaluate them, leading to the possibility of considering multiple sets of arguments and attack relations. Two basic questions can be asked here, namely 'what to aggregate' and 'how to aggregate'. The former concerns what kinds of entities do the agents intend to choose (arguments, attacks, assessments, etc.), while the second one focuses on which aggregation mechanisms yield rational choices (voting on arguments, merging procedures to obtain a common argumentation framework, deliberation processes, etc.). In particular, the question about the rationality of a collective argument choice relates this topic to Social Choice and Judgment Aggregation theories, while its associated strategic issues relate it to Game Theory. The research efforts on the disparate problems elicited by collective argumentation have generated a considerable corpus of literature that deserves an orderly evaluation. This survey is intended as a contribution to that end.

show abstract

Rewriting Rules for the Computation of Goal-Oriented Changes in an Argumentation System

Cited by 6 publications

References 12 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

Constraints and changes: A survey of abstract argumentation dynamics

Collective argumentation: A survey of aggregation issues around argumentation frameworks

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About