Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Generalising Semantics to Weighted Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Intelligent Systems (BRACIS 2022)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 13653))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 670 Accesses

Abstract

In Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks (\(\textit{BAF}\)s), arguments cannot only attack, but support other arguments. In this paper, we generalise the fundamental semantics for \(\textit{BAF}\)s to deal with Weighted Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks (\( WBAF \)s), in which real numbers are assigned as weights to arguments. A distinguishing aspect of our approach is that our semantics are determined in terms of two measures: one is employed to assess the degree of acceptability of an argument, and the other, its degree of rejection. Then, as opposed to previous proposals, we have more expressive semantics that naturally generalise their corresponding semantics for \(\textit{BAF}\)s and are defined for each \( WBAF \).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Simari, G.R., Loui, R.P.: A mathematical treatment of defeasible reasoning and its implementation. Artif. Intell. 53(2–3), 125–157 (1992)

    Google Scholar 

  2. García, A.J., Simari, G.R.: Defeasible logic programming: an argumentative approach. Theory Pract. Log. Programm. 4(1–2), 95–138 (2004)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Amgoud, L., Prade, H.: Using arguments for making and explaining decisions. Artif. Intell. 173(3–4), 413–436 (2009)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Spieler, J., Potyka, N., Staab, S.: Learning gradual argumentation frameworks using genetic algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.13585 (2021)

  5. Hadoux, E., Hunter, A.: Learning and updating user models for subpopulations in persuasive argumentation using beta distribution. In: Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, vol. 17, pp. 1141–1149. Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Rago, A., Cocarascu, O., Toni, F.: Argumentation-based recommendations: fantastic explanations and how to find them. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 1949–1955 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Cocarascu, O., Rago, A., Toni, F.: Extracting dialogical explanations for review aggregations with argumentative dialogical agents. In: Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems, pp. 1261–1269. Association for Computing Machinery (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Phan Minh Dung: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif. Intell. 77(2), 321–357 (1995)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Brewka, G., Woltran, S.: Abstract dialectical frameworks. In: Twelfth International Conference on the Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pp. 102–111. AAAI Press (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. J. Log. Comput. 13(3), 429–448 (2003)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. 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). https://doi.org/10.1007/11518655_33

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  12. Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.-C., Livet, P.: On bipolarity in argumentation frameworks. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 23(10), 1062–1093 (2008)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Kaci, S., van der Torre, L.: Preference-based argumentation: arguments supporting multiple values. Int. J. Approx. Reason. 48(3), 730–751 (2008)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Baroni, P., Romano, M., Toni, F., Aurisicchio, M., Bertanza, G.: Automatic evaluation of design alternatives with quantitative argumentation. Argum. Comput. 6(1), 24–49 (2015)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Rago, A., Toni, F., Aurisicchio, M., Baroni, P.: Discontinuity-free decision support with quantitative argumentation debates. In: Fifteenth International Conference on the Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Amgoud, L., Ben-Naim, J., Doder, D., Vesic, S.: Acceptability semantics for weighted argumentation frameworks. In: Twenty-Sixth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Mossakowski, T., Neuhaus, F.: Modular semantics and characteristics for bipolar weighted argumentation graphs. arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.06685 (2018)

  18. Potyka, N.: Continuous dynamical systems for weighted bipolar argumentation. In: Sixteenth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Potyka, N.: Generalizing complete semantics to bipolar argumentation frameworks. In: Vejnarová, J., Wilson, N. (eds.) ECSQARU 2021. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 12897, pp. 130–143. Springer, Cham (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-86772-0_10

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. Caminada, M.W.A., Gabbay, D.M.: A logical account of formal argumentation. Studia Logica. 93(2–3), 109 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Boella, G., Gabbay, D.M., van der Torre, L., Villata, S.: Support in abstract argumentation. In: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2010), pp. 40–51. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, IOS Press (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.-C.: Bipolarity in argumentation graphs: towards a better understanding. Int. J. Approx. Reason. 54(7), 876–899 (2013)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  23. Tarski, A.: A lattice-theoretical fixpoint theorem and its applications. Pac. J. Math. 5(2), 285–309 (1955)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  24. Amgoud, L., Ben-Naim, J.: Ranking-based semantics for argumentation frameworks. In: Liu, W., Subrahmanian, V.S., Wijsen, J. (eds.) SUM 2013. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 8078, pp. 134–147. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40381-1_11

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  25. Amgoud, L., Ben-Naim, J.: Evaluation of arguments in weighted bipolar graphs, pp. 25–35 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science, Federal University of Ceará, Fortaleza, Brazil

    Renan Cordeiro & João Alcântara

Authors
  1. Renan Cordeiro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. João Alcântara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Renan Cordeiro .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte, Natal, Brazil

    João Carlos Xavier-Junior

  2. Federal University of Bahia, Salvador, Brazil

    Ricardo Araújo Rios

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Cordeiro, R., Alcântara, J. (2022). Generalising Semantics to Weighted Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks. In: Xavier-Junior, J.C., Rios, R.A. (eds) Intelligent Systems. BRACIS 2022. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 13653. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-21686-2_36

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-21686-2_36

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-21685-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-21686-2

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation