An Argumentation System with Indirect Attacks

Kazuko Takahashi

2013

Abstract

We discuss argumentation frameworks with indirect attacks, such as why-questions and supports. A whyquestion is regarded as a kind of attack relation, and a support is an answer to an un-presented why-question. Based on this idea, we construct an argumentation framework with why-questions from a pair of knowledge bases, as an instantiation of Dung’s abstract argumentation framework, and show that its extension is consistent. Next, we transform this argumentation framework into an argumentation framework with supports, and discuss its properties. The resulting framework is an instantiation of Bipolar Argumentation Framework (BAF), defined as a triple consisting of arguments, attack relations and support relations. We define an extension of BAF, and show that the framework defined in this paper has some nice properties.

References

  1. Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C., and Lagasquie-Shiex, M.-C. (2008). On bipolarity in argumentation frameworks. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 23(10):1062-1093.
  2. Bench-Capon, T. and Dunne, P. (2007). Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Artificial Intelligence, 171:619- 641.
  3. Boella, G., Gabbay, D., Torre, L. d., and Villata, S. (2010). Support in abstract argumentation. In COMMA2010, pages 111-122.
  4. Cayrol, C. and Lagasquie-Shiex, M.-C. (2010). Coalitions of arguments: A tool for handling bipolar argumentation frameworks. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 25(1):83-109.
  5. Dung, P. (1995). On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence, 77:321-357.
  6. García, A., Chesn˜evar, C., Rotstein, N., and Simari, G. (2007). An abstract presentation of dialectical explanations in defeasible argumentation. In ArgNMR2007, pages 17-32.
  7. Modgil, S. and Prakken, H. (2011). Revisiting preference and argumentation. In IJCAI2011, pages 1021-1026.
  8. Prakken, H. (2010). An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. Argument and Computation, 1:93-124.
  9. Prakken, H. (2011). An overview of formal models of argumentation and their application in philosophy. Studies in logic, 4(1):65-86.
  10. Rahwan, I. and Simari, G., editors (2009). Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Springer.
  11. Walton, D. and Krabbe, E. (1995). Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. SUNY Press.
Download


Paper Citation


in Harvard Style

Takahashi K. (2013). An Argumentation System with Indirect Attacks . In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence - Volume 2: ICAART, ISBN 978-989-8565-39-6, pages 551-554. DOI: 10.5220/0004323305510554


in Bibtex Style

@conference{icaart13,
author={Kazuko Takahashi},
title={An Argumentation System with Indirect Attacks},
booktitle={Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence - Volume 2: ICAART,},
year={2013},
pages={551-554},
publisher={SciTePress},
organization={INSTICC},
doi={10.5220/0004323305510554},
isbn={978-989-8565-39-6},
}


in EndNote Style

TY - CONF
JO - Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence - Volume 2: ICAART,
TI - An Argumentation System with Indirect Attacks
SN - 978-989-8565-39-6
AU - Takahashi K.
PY - 2013
SP - 551
EP - 554
DO - 10.5220/0004323305510554