Interpretations of support among arguments

The theory of formal argumentation distinguishes and unifies various notions of attack, support and preference among arguments, and principles are used to classify the semantics of various kinds of argumentation frameworks. In this paper, we consider the case in which we know that an argument is supporting another one, but we do not know yet which kind of support it is. Most common in the literature is to classify support as deductive, necessary, or evidentiary. Alternatively, support is characterized using principles. We discuss the interpretation of support using a legal divorce action. Technical results and proofs can be found in an accompanying technical report

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

An Axiomatic Approach to Support in Argumentation

International audienceIn the context of bipolar argumentation (argumentation with two kinds of interaction, attacks and supports), we present an axiomatic approach for taking into account a special interpretation of the support relation, the necessary support. We propose constraints that should be imposed to a bipolar argumentation system using this interpretation. Some of these constraints concern the new attack relations, others concern acceptability. We extend basic Dung’s framework in different ways in order to propose frameworks suitable for encoding these constraints. By the way, we propose a formal study of properties of necessary support

Representing and Extracting Support via Complement-based Argumentation Frameworks

Both support and attack are essential concepts in natural argumentation. As originally introduced, however, abstract argumentation considered only attack. Although there have been attempts to add a support relation to abstract argumentation, these do not fulfil all desiderata. In this paper we show how the various notions of necessary and sufficient support can be captured using only the attack relation, and highlight the problematic nature of the notion of general support. We suggest that leveraging abstract argumentation semantics and the attack relation to represent support, and the consequent expression of argument in a simple graphical architecture, will yield computational benefits

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

A Study of AIF Argument Networks Anomalies and a Characterization of its Solutions

The Argument Interchange Format (AIF) is a communal project with the purpose of developing a way of interchanging data between tools for argument manipulation and visualization. The AIF project also aims to develop a commonly agreed upon core ontology that specifies the basic concepts used to express arguments and their mutual relations. However, the flexibility provided by the AIF core ontology may lead to ambiguous or undesired interpretations. If ambiguous and anomalous situations are allowed, the purpose of using AIF as a common lingua for the research and development of argumentation systems might be jeopardized. The goal of this work is to identify anomalies that can arise and propose solutions for them.Sociedad Argentina de Informática e Investigación Operativ