Abstract
The introduction of abstract argumentation has allowed the study of many exciting characteristics of the argumentation process. Nevertheless, while helpful in many aspects, abstraction diminishes the knowledge representation capabilities available to describe naturally occurring features of argumentative dialogues. One of these elements is the consideration of the topics involved in a discussion. In studying dialogical processes, participants recognize that some topics are closely related to the original issue, while others are more distant to the central subject or simply refer to unrelated matters. Consequently, it is reasonable to study different argumentation semantics that consider the focus of a discussion to evaluate acceptability. In this work, we will introduce the necessary representational elements required to reflect the focus of a discussion, and we will propose an extension of the semantics for multi-topic abstract argumentation frameworks acknowledging that every argument has its own zone of relevance in the argumentation framework, leading to a concept of a neighborhood of legitimate defenses. Furthermore, other semantic elaborations are defined and discussed around this structure.
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
References
Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Value-based argumentation frameworks. In: Benferhat, S., Giunchiglia, E. (eds.) Proceedings of NMR, pp. 443–454 (2002)
Benn, N., Macintosh, A.: Argument visualization for eParticipation: towards a research agenda and prototype tool. In: Tambouris, E., Macintosh, A., de Bruijn, H. (eds.) ePart 2011. LNCS, vol. 6847, pp. 60–73. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-23333-3_6
Buckley, F., Harary, F.: Distance in graphs. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company Advanced Book Program, Redwood (1990)
Budán, M.C., Cobo, M.L., Martinez, D.C., Simari, G.R.: Bipolarity in temporal argumentation frameworks. Int. J. Approx. Reason. 84, 1–22 (2017)
Budán, M.C., Cobo, M.L., Martinez, D.C., Simari, G.R.: Proximity semantics for topic-based abstract argumentation. Inf. Sci. 508, 135–153 (2020)
Budán, M.C., Lucero, M.G., Chesñevar, C., Simari, G.R.: Modeling time and valuation in structured argumentation frameworks. Inf. Sci. 290, 22–44 (2015)
Budán, P.D., Escañuela Gonzalez, M.G., Budán, M.C.D., Martinez, M.V., Simari, G.R.: Similarity notions in bipolar abstract argumentation. Argument Comput. 11(1–2), 103–149 (2020)
Cartwright, D., Atkinson, K.: Using computational argumentation to support e-participation. IEEE Intell. Syst. 24(5), 42–52 (2009)
DebateGraph. https://www.debategraph.org/
Deza, M.M., Deza, E.: Encyclopedia of Distances, 2nd edn. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-30958-8
Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning and logic programming and \(n\)-person games. Artif. Intell. 77, 321–357 (1995)
Foucault, M., Smith, A., Sheridan, A.: The Archaeology of Knowledge; And. The Discourse on Language. Pantheon Books, Pantheon Books (1972)
Goddard, W., Oellermann, O.R.: Distance in graphs. In: Dehmer, M. (ed.) Structural Analysis of Complex Networks, chap. 3, pp. 49–72. Birkhäuser Basel (2011)
Hunter, A.: Probabilistic qualification of attack in abstract argumentation. Int. J. Approx. Reason. 55(2), 607–638 (2014)
Kontarinis, D., Bonzon, E., Maudet, N., Moraitis, P.: Picking the right expert to make a debate uncontroversial. In: Verheij, B., Szeider, S., Woltran, S. (eds.) Computational Models of Argument - Proceedings of COMMA 2012, Austria. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 245, pp. 486–497. IOS Press (2012)
Leite, J., Martins, J.G.: Social abstract argumentation. In: Walsh, T. (ed.) IJCAI 2011, Proceedings of the 22nd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Barcelona, pp. 2287–2292. IJCAI/AAAI (2011)
Visser, W., Hindriks, K.V., Jonker, C.M.: An argumentation framework for qualitative multi-criteria preferences. In: Modgil, S., Oren, N., Toni, F. (eds.) TAFA 2011. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 7132, pp. 85–98. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-29184-5_6
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Escañuela Gonzalez, M.G., Budán, M.C.D., Martínez, D.I., Cobo, M.L., Simari, G.R. (2021). Focusing the Argumentative Process: Neighborhood-Based Semantics in Abstract Argumentation. In: Baroni, P., Benzmüller, C., Wáng, Y.N. (eds) Logic and Argumentation. CLAR 2021. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 13040. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-89391-0_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-89391-0_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-89390-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-89391-0
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)