"Minimal defence": a refinement of the preferred semantics for argumentation frameworks

Dung's abstract framework for argumentation enables a study of the interactions between arguments based solely on an ``attack'' binary relation on the set of arguments. Various ways to solve conflicts between contradictory pieces of information have been proposed in the context of argumentation, nonmonotonic reasoning or logic programming, and can be captured by appropriate semantics within Dung's framework. A common feature of these semantics is that one can always maximize in some sense the set of acceptable arguments. We propose in this paper to extend Dung's framework in order to allow for the representation of what we call ``restricted'' arguments: these arguments should only be used if absolutely necessary, that is, in order to support other arguments that would otherwise be defeated. We modify Dung's preferred semantics accordingly: a set of arguments becomes acceptable only if it contains a minimum of restricted arguments, for a maximum of unrestricted arguments.Comment: 8 pages, 3 figure

From preferences over arguments to preferences over attacks in abstract argumentation: A comparative study

International audienceDung's argumentation framework has been extended to consider preferences over arguments or over attacks, in a qualitative or in a quantitative way. In this paper, we investigate the relationships between preferences over arguments and preferences over attacks. We give conditions on the definition of preferences over attacks from preferences over arguments. Following these principles, we propose different instantiations of an AFvs (argumentation framework with attacks of various strength), when preferences over arguments are available. Our proposal is compared to existing work, particularly regarding the conditions in which the defence holds

Change in abstract bipolar argumentation systems (SUM 2015)

International audienceAn argumentation system can undergo changes (addition or removal of arguments/interactions), particularly in multiagent systems. In this paper, we are interested in dynamics of abstract bipolar argumentation systems, i.e. argumentation systems using two kinds of interaction: attacks and supports. We propose change characterizations that use and extend previous results defined in the case of Dung abstract argumentation systems

Bipolarity in argumentation graphs: Towards a better understanding

Edited by Benferhat Salem, Philippe LerayInternational audienceDifferent 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

Logic-Based Decision Support for Strategic Environmental Assessment

Strategic Environmental Assessment is a procedure aimed at introducing systematic assessment of the environmental effects of plans and programs. This procedure is based on the so-called coaxial matrices that define dependencies between plan activities (infrastructures, plants, resource extractions, buildings, etc.) and positive and negative environmental impacts, and dependencies between these impacts and environmental receptors. Up to now, this procedure is manually implemented by environmental experts for checking the environmental effects of a given plan or program, but it is never applied during the plan/program construction. A decision support system, based on a clear logic semantics, would be an invaluable tool not only in assessing a single, already defined plan, but also during the planning process in order to produce an optimized, environmentally assessed plan and to study possible alternative scenarios. We propose two logic-based approaches to the problem, one based on Constraint Logic Programming and one on Probabilistic Logic Programming that could be, in the future, conveniently merged to exploit the advantages of both. We test the proposed approaches on a real energy plan and we discuss their limitations and advantages.Comment: 17 pages, 1 figure, 26th Int'l. Conference on Logic Programming (ICLP'10