Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T20:40:39.643Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A survey of different approaches to support in argumentation systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 September 2013

Andrea Cohen ,
Sebastian Gottifredi ,
Alejandro J. García  and
Guillermo R. Simari
Andrea Cohen
Affiliation:
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET), Artificial Intelligence Research and Development Laboratory, Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Universidad Nacional del Sur, Avenida Alem 1253, Bahía Blanca (8000), Argentina; e-mail: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Sebastian Gottifredi
Affiliation:
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET), Artificial Intelligence Research and Development Laboratory, Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Universidad Nacional del Sur, Avenida Alem 1253, Bahía Blanca (8000), Argentina; e-mail: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Alejandro J. García
Affiliation:
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET), Artificial Intelligence Research and Development Laboratory, Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Universidad Nacional del Sur, Avenida Alem 1253, Bahía Blanca (8000), Argentina; e-mail: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Guillermo R. Simari
Affiliation:
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET), Artificial Intelligence Research and Development Laboratory, Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Universidad Nacional del Sur, Avenida Alem 1253, Bahía Blanca (8000), Argentina; e-mail: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the last decades, most works in the literature have been devoted to study argumentation formalisms that focus on a defeat relation among arguments. Recently, the study of a support relation between arguments regained attention among researchers; the bulk of the research has been centered on the study of support within the context of abstract argumentation by considering support as an explicit interaction between arguments. However, there exist other approaches that take support into account in a different setting. This article surveys several interpretations of the notion of support as proposed in the literature, such as deductive support, necessary support, evidential support, subargument, and backing, among others. The aim is to provide a comprehensive study where similarities and differences among these interpretations are highlighted, as well as discuss how they are addressed by different argumentation formalisms.

Type
Articles
Information
The Knowledge Engineering Review , Volume 29 , Issue 5 , November 2014 , pp. 513 - 550
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C. 2002. A reasoning model based on the production of acceptable arguments. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 34(1–3), 197–215.Google Scholar
Amgoud, L., Vesic, S. 2011. A new approach for preference-based argumentation frameworks. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 63(2), 149–183.Google Scholar
Amgoud, L., Bonnefon, J.-F., Prade, H. 2005. An argumentation-based approach to multiple criteria decision. In 8th European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty, 269–280.Google Scholar
Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.-C. 2004. On the bipolarity in argumentation frameworks. In 10th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning, Whistler, BC, Canada, 1–9.Google Scholar
Amgoud, L., Maudet, N., Parsons, S. 2002. An argumentation-based semantics for agent communication languages. In 15th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Lyon, France, 38–42.Google Scholar
Amgoud, L., Parsons, S., Maudet, N. 2000. Arguments, dialogue, and negotiation. In 14th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Berlin, Germany, 338–342.Google Scholar
Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T. J. M. 2007. Argumentation and standards of proof. In 11th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, Stanford, California, USA, 107–116.Google Scholar
Baroni, P., Cerutti, F., Giacomin, M., Guida, G. 2011. AFRA: Argumentation framework with recursive attacks. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 52(1), 19–37.Google Scholar
Bench-Capon, T. J. M. 2003. Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation 13(3), 429–448.Google Scholar
Bench-Capon, T. J. M., Dunne, P. E. 2007. Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Artificial Intelligence 171(10–15), 619–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benferhat, S., Dubois, D., Kaci, S., Prade, H. 2002. Bipolar representation and fusion of preferences on the possibilistic logic framework. In 8th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, Toulouse, France, 421–448.Google Scholar
Berge, C. 2001. Graphs and Hypergraphs. Dover Publications.Google Scholar
Besnard, P., Hunter, A. 2001. A logic-based theory of deductive arguments. Artificial Intelligence 128(1–2), 203–235.Google Scholar
Besnard, P., Hunter, A. 2008. Elements of Argumentation. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Black, E., Hunter, A. 2009. An inquiry dialogue system. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 19(2), 173–209.Google Scholar
Boella, G., Gabbay, D. M., van der Torre, L. W. N., Villata, S. 2010. Support in abstract argumentation. In 3rd International Conference on Computational Models of Argument, Baroni, P., Cerutti, F., Giacomin, M. & Simari, G. R. (eds). IOS Press, 111–122.Google Scholar
Boudhar, I., Nouioua, F., Risch, V. 2012. Handling preferences in argumentation frameworks with necessities. In 4th International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence, Vilamoura, Algarve, Portugal, 340–345.Google Scholar
Brewka, G., Woltran, S. 2010. Abstract dialectical frameworks. In 12th International Conference on the Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 102–111.Google Scholar
Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.-C. 2005. On the acceptability of arguments in bipolar argumentation frameworks. In 8th European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty, Barcelona, Spain, 378–389.Google Scholar
Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.-C. 2007. Coalitions of arguments in bipolar argumentation frameworks. In 7th International Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument, Hyderabad, India, 14–20.Google Scholar
Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.-C. 2009. Bipolar abstract argumentation systems. In Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, Simari, G. R. & Rahwan, I. (eds). Springer, 65–84.Google Scholar
Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.-C. 2010. Coalitions of arguments: a tool for handling bipolar argumentation frameworks. International Journal of Intelligent Systems 25(1), 83–109.Google Scholar
Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M-C. 2011. Bipolarity in argumentation graphs: towards a better understanding. In 5th International Conference on Scalable Uncertainty Management, Dayton, Ohio, USA, 137–148.Google Scholar
Chesñevar, C. I., McGinnis, J., Modgil, S., Rahwan, I., Reed, C., Simari, G. R., South, M., Vreeswijk, G., Willmott, S. 2006. Towards an argument interchange format. The Knowledge Engineering Review 21(4), 293–316.Google Scholar
Cohen, A., García, A. J., Simari, G. R. 2011. Backing and undercutting in defeasible logic programming. In 11th European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty, Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK, 50–61.Google Scholar
Cohen, A., García, A. J., Simari, G. R. 2012. Backing and undercutting in abstract argumentation frameworks. In 7th International Symposium on Foundations of Information and Knowledge Systems, Kiel, Germany, 107–123.Google Scholar
Dubois, D., Prade, H. 2005. A bipolar possibilistic representation of knowledge and preferences and its applications. In 6th International Workshop on Fuzzy Logic and Applications, Crema, Italy, 1–10.Google Scholar
Dubois, D., Fargier, H., Bonnefon, J.-F. 2008. On the qualitative comparison of decisions having positive and negative features. Journal of Artificial Intellicence Research 32, 385–417.Google Scholar
Dung, P. M. 1995. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence 77(2), 321–358.Google Scholar
García, A. J., Simari, G. R. 2004. Defeasible logic programming: an argumentative approach. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 4(1–2), 95–138.Google Scholar
Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V. 1988. The stable model semantics for logic programming. In ICLP/SLP, Seattle, Washington, USA, 1070–1080.Google Scholar
Gómez Lucero, M. J., Chesñevar, C. I., Simari, G. R. 2009. On the accrual of arguments in defeasible logic programming. In 21st International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Pasadena, California, USA, 804–809.Google Scholar
Martínez, D. C., García, A. J., Simari, G. R. 2006. On acceptability in abstract argumentation frameworks with an extended defeat relation. In 1st International Conference on Computational Models of Argument, Liverpool, UK, 273–278.Google Scholar
Martínez, D. C., García, A. J., Simari, G. R. 2007. Modelling well-structured argumentation lines. In 20th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Hyderabad, India, 465–470.Google Scholar
Martínez, D. C., García, A. J., Simari, G. R. 2008a. Strong and weak forms of abstract argument defense. In 2nd International Conference on Computational Models of Argument, Toulouse, France, 216–227.Google Scholar
Martínez, D. C., García, A. J., Simari, G. R. 2008b. An abstract argumentation framework with varied-strength attacks. In 11th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, Sydney, NSW, Australia, 135–144.Google Scholar
Modgil, S. 2009. Reasoning about preferences in argumentation frameworks. Artificial Intelligence 173(9–10), 901–934.Google Scholar
Nielsen, S. H., Parsons, S. 2006. A generalization of Dung's abstract framework for argumentation: arguing with sets of attacking arguments. In Third International Workshop on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems, Hakodate, Japan, 54–73.Google Scholar
Nouioua, F., Risch, V. 2010. Bipolar argumentation frameworks with specialized supports. In 22th IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence, Arras, France, 215–218.Google Scholar
Nouioua, F., Risch, V. 2011. Argumentation frameworks with necessities. In 5th International Conference on Scalable Uncertainty Management, Dayton, Ohio, USA, 163–176.Google Scholar
Oren, N., Norman, T. J. 2008. Semantics for evidence-based argumentation. In 2nd International Conference on Computational Models of Argument, Toulouse, France, 276–284.Google Scholar
Parsons, S., Sierra, C., Jennings, N. R. 1998. Agents that reason and negotiate by arguing. Journal of Logic and Computation 8(3), 261–292.Google Scholar
Pollock, J. L. 1987. Defeasible reasoning. Cognitive Science 11(4), 481–518.Google Scholar
Pollock, J. L. 1991. Self-defeating arguments. Minds and Machines 1, 367–392.Google Scholar
Prakken, H. 2005. A study of accrual of arguments, with applications to evidential reasoning. In 10th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, Bologna, Italy, 85–94.Google Scholar
Prakken, H. 2009. An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. Journal of Argument and Computation 1, 93–124.Google Scholar
Prakken, H., Sartor, G. 1997. Argument-based extended logic programming with defeasible priorities. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 7(1), 25–75.Google Scholar
Prakken, H., Vreeswijk, G. 2002. Logics for defeasible argumentation. In Handbook of Philosophical Logic, Vol. 4, Gabbay, D. & Guenthner, F. (eds). Kluwer Academic Publishing, 218–319.Google Scholar
Rahwan, I., Simari, G. R. 2009. Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence. Springer.Google Scholar
Rotstein, N. D., Moguillansky, M. O., Falappa, M. A., García, A. J., Simari, G. R. 2008. Argument theory change: revision upon warrant. In 2nd International Conference on Computational Models of Argument, Toulouse, France, 336–347.Google Scholar
Rotstein, N. D., Moguillansky, M. O., García, A. J., Simari, G. R. 2010. A dynamic argumentation framework. In 3rd International Conference on Computational Models of Argument, Desenzano del Garda, Italy, 427–438.Google Scholar
Simari, G. R., Loui, R. P. 1992. A mathematical treatment of defeasible reasoning and its implementation. Artificial Intelligence 53(2–3), 125–157.Google Scholar
Toulmin, S. E. 1958. The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Verheij, B. 1996. Rules, Reasons, Arguments. Formal Studies of argumentation and defeat. PhD thesis, Universiteit Maastricht.Google Scholar
Verheij, B. 2002. On the existence and multiplicity of extensions in dialectical argumentation. In 9th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning, Toulouse, France, 416–425.Google Scholar
Verheij, B. 2003. DefLog: on the logical interpretation of prima facie justified assumptions. Journal of Logic and Computation 13(3), 319–346.Google Scholar
Verheij, B. 2005. Evaluating arguments based on Toulmin's scheme. Argumentation 19(3), 347–371.Google Scholar
Verheij, B. 2009. The Toulmin argument model in artificial intelligence. Or: how semi-formal, defeasible argumentation schemes creep into logic. In Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, Rahwan, I. & Simari, G. R. (eds). Springer, 219–238.Google Scholar