Abstract
Different abstract argumentation frameworks have been used for various applications within multi-agents systems. Among them, bipolar frameworks make use of both attack and support relations between arguments. However, there is no single interpretation of the support, and the handling of bipolarity cannot avoid a deeper analysis of the notion of support. In this paper we consider three recent proposals for specializing the support relation in abstract argumentation : the deductive support, the necessary support and the evidential support. These proposals have been developed independently within different frameworks. We restate these proposals in a common setting, which enables us to undertake a comparative study of the modellings obtained for the three variants of the support. We highlight relationships and differences between these variants, namely a kind of duality between the deductive and the necessary interpretations of the support.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Boella, G., Gabbay, D.M., van der Torre, L., Villata, S.: Support in abstract argumentation. In: Proc. of COMMA, pp. 111–122. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2010)
Brewka, G., Woltran, S.: Abstract dialectical frameworks. In: Proc. of KR, pp. 102–111 (2010)
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)
Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.-C.: Coalitions of arguments: a tool for handling bipolar argumentation frameworks. International Journal of Intelligent Systems 25, 83–109 (2010)
Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence 77, 321–357 (1995)
Karacapilidis, N., Papadias, D.: Computer supported argumentation and collaborative decision making: the hermes system. Information systems 26(4), 259–277 (2001)
Nouioua, F., Risch, V.: Bipolar argumentation frameworks with specialized supports. In: Proc. of ICTAI, pp. 215–218. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2010)
Oren, N., Norman, T.J.: Semantics for evidence-based argumentation. In: Proc. of COMMA, pp. 276–284 (2008)
Oren, N., Reed, C., Luck, M.: Moving between argumentation frameworks. In: Proc. of COMMA, pp. 379–390. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2010)
Verheij, B.: Deflog: on the logical interpretation of prima facie justified assumptions. Journal of Logic in Computation 13, 319–346 (2003)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2011 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, MC. (2011). Bipolarity in Argumentation Graphs: Towards a Better Understanding. In: Benferhat, S., Grant, J. (eds) Scalable Uncertainty Management. SUM 2011. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 6929. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-23963-2_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-23963-2_12
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-23962-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-23963-2
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)