Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Topological Conditions and Solutions for Repairing Argumentation Frameworks

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Logic and Argumentation (CLAR 2023)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 14156))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 163 Accesses

Abstract

This paper discusses how to make an argumentation framework (AF) with no stable extensions into one with a stable extension by adding a new argument, which we call ‘repair’. We remove the restrictions that were put on the target AFs in our previous work, and show a simple condition for an arbitrary AF to have no stable extensions. Then, we refine the conditions that an AF should satisfy to be repaired and identify the position where a new argument is added. We also discuss other possible repair types. The judgments are simple, easy to intuitively understand by virtue of the usage of topological features.

This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number JP17H06103.

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 49.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 64.99
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

Notes

  1. 1.

    The definition of the reduction is modified from that described in [24].

References

  1. Baroni, P., Caminada, M., Giacomin, M.: An introduction to argumentation semantics. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 26(4), 365–410 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Baroni, P., Gabbay, D., Giacomin, M. (eds.): Handbook of Formal Argumentation. College Publications, Norcross (2018)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Baroni, P., Giacomin, M., Guida, G.: SCC-recursiveness: a general schema for argumentation semantics. Artif. Intell. 168(1–2), 162–210 (2014)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Baroni, P., Giacomin, M., Liao, B.: On topology-related properties of abstract argumentation semantics. a correction and extension to dynamics of argumentation systems: a division-based method. Artif. Intell. 212, 104–115 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Baumann, R., Brewka, G.: Extension removal in abstract argumentation - an axiomatic approach. In: AAAI 2019, pp. 2670–2677 (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Baumann, R., Brewka, G.: Expanding argumentation frameworks: enforcing and monotonicity results. In: COMMA 2010, pp. 75–86 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Baumann, R., Brewka, G.: What does it take to enforce an argument? - Minimal change in abstract argumentation. In: ECAI 2012, pp. 127–132 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Baumann, R., Doutre, S., Mailly, J.G., Wallner, J.P.: Enforcement in formal argumentation. J. Appl. Log. 8(6), 1623–1678 (2021)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Baumann, R., Gabbay, D.M., Rodrigues, O.: Forgetting an argument. In: AAAI 2020, pp. 2750–2757 (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Baumann, R., Ulbricht, M.: If nothing is accepted - repairing argumentation frameworks. In: KR 2018, pp. 108–117 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Baumann, R., Ulbricht, M.: On cycles, attackers and supporters - a contribution to the investigation of dynamics in abstract argumentation. In: IJCAI 2021, pp. 1780–1786 (2021)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Bench-Capon, T., Dunne, P.E.: Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Artif. Intell. 171, 10–15 (2007)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Boella, G., Kaci, S., van der Torre, L.: Dynamics in argumentation with single extensions: abstraction principles and the grounded extension. In: Sossai, C., Chemello, G. (eds.) ECSQARU 2009. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5590, pp. 107–118. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02906-6_11

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Boella, G., Kaci, S., van der Torre, L.W.N.: Dynamics in argumentation with single extensions: attack refinement and the grounded extension. In: AAMAS 2009, pp. 1213–1214 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Cayrol, C., de Saint-Cyr, F.D., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.C.: Revision of an argumentation system. In: KR 2008, pp. 124–134 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Cayrol, C., de Saint-Cyr, F.D., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.C.: Change in abstract argumentation frameworks: adding an argument. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 38, 49–84 (2010)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Coste-Marquis, S., Konieczny, S., Mailly, J.G., Marquis, P.: Extension enforcement in abstract argumentation as an optimization problem. In: IJCAI 2015, pp. 2876–2882 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Doutre, S., Mailly, J.G.: Constraints and changes: a survey of abstract argumentation dynamics. Argum. Comput. 9(3), 223–248 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. Liao, B., Jin, L., Koons, R.C.: Dynamics of argumentation systems: a division-based method. Artif. Intell. 175(11), 1790–1814 (2011)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  21. Rahwan, I., Simari, G.R. (eds.): Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence. Springer, New York (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-98197-0

    Book  Google Scholar 

  22. Saribatur, Z.G., Wallner, J.P.: Existential abstraction on argumentation frameworks via clustering. In: KR 2021, pp. 549–559 (2021)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Schulz, C., Toni, F.: On the responsibility for undecisiveness in preferred and stable labellings in abstract argumentation. Artif. Intell. 262, 301–335 (2018)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  24. Takahashi, K.: Odd or even: handling n-lemmas in a dynamic argumentation framework. In: SAFA 2022, pp. 5–18 (2022)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Takahashi, K., Okubo, T.: How can you resolve a trilemma? - A topological approach. In: Baroni, P., Benzmüller, C., Wáng, Y.N. (eds.) CLAR 2021. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 13040, pp. 397–416. Springer, Cham (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-89391-0_22

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  26. Villata, S.: Explainable, Trustable and Emphatic Artificial Intelligence from Formal Argumentation Theory to Argumentation for Humans. habilitation, Université Côte D’Azur, Habilitation thesis (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Šefránek, J.: Updates of argumentation frameworks. In: NMR 2012 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Wallner, J.P., Niskanen, A., Järvisalo, M.: Complexity results and algorithms for extension enforcement in abstract argumentation. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 60, 1–40 (2017)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Kwansei Gakuin University, 1 Gakuen Uegahara, Sanda, 669-1330, Japan

    Kazuko Takahashi & Hiroyoshi Miwa

Authors
  1. Kazuko Takahashi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hiroyoshi Miwa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kazuko Takahashi .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. IRIT CNRS, Toulouse, France

    Andreas Herzig

  2. Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China

    Jieting Luo

  3. University of Luxembourg, Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg

    Pere Pardo

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 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

Takahashi, K., Miwa, H. (2023). Topological Conditions and Solutions for Repairing Argumentation Frameworks. In: Herzig, A., Luo, J., Pardo, P. (eds) Logic and Argumentation. CLAR 2023. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 14156. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-40875-5_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-40875-5_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-40874-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-40875-5

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation