The Complexity of Repairing, Adjusting, and Aggregating of Extensions in Abstract Argumentation

We study the computational complexity of problems that arise in abstract argumentation in the context of dynamic argumentation, minimal change, and aggregation. In particular, we consider the following problems where always an argumentation framework F and a small positive integer k are given. - The Repair problem asks whether a given set of arguments can be modified into an extension by at most k elementary changes (i.e., the extension is of distance k from the given set). - The Adjust problem asks whether a given extension can be modified by at most k elementary changes into an extension that contains a specified argument. - The Center problem asks whether, given two extensions of distance k, whether there is a "center" extension that is a distance at most (k-1) from both given extensions. We study these problems in the framework of parameterized complexity, and take the distance k as the parameter. Our results covers several different semantics, including admissible, complete, preferred, semi-stable and stable semantics

Abstract Argumentation / Persuasion / Dynamics

The act of persuasion, a key component in rhetoric argumentation, may be viewed as a dynamics modifier. We extend Dung's frameworks with acts of persuasion among agents, and consider interactions among attack, persuasion and defence that have been largely unheeded so far. We characterise basic notions of admissibilities in this framework, and show a way of enriching them through, effectively, CTL (computation tree logic) encoding, which also permits importation of the theoretical results known to the logic into our argumentation frameworks. Our aim is to complement the growing interest in coordination of static and dynamic argumentation.Comment: Arisaka R., Satoh K. (2018) Abstract Argumentation / Persuasion / Dynamics. In: Miller T., Oren N., Sakurai Y., Noda I., Savarimuthu B., Cao Son T. (eds) PRIMA 2018: Principles and Practice of Multi-Agent Systems. PRIMA 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 11224. Springer, Cha

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

Comparison Criteria for Argumentation Semantics

Argumentation reasoning is a way for agents to evaluate a situation. Given a framework made of conflicting arguments, a semantics allows to evaluate the acceptability of the arguments. It may happen that the semantics associated to the framework has to be changed. In order to perform the most suitable change, the current and a potential new semantics have to be compared. Notions of difference measures between semantics have already been proposed, and application cases where they have to be minimized when a change of semantics has to be performed, have been highlighted. This paper develops these notions, it proposes an additional kind of difference measure, and shows application cases where measures may have to be maximized, and combined

Inference from controversial arguments

International audienceWe present new careful semantics within Dung's theory of argumentation. Under such careful semantics, two arguments cannot belong to the same extension whenever one of them indirectly attacks a third argument while the other one indirectly defends the third.We argue that our semantics lead to a better handling of controversial arguments than Dung's ones in some settings. We compare the careful inference relations induced by our semantics w.r.t. cautiousness; we also compare them with the inference relations induced by Dung's semantic

Argumentation as Exogenous Coordination

Formal argumentation is one of the most popular approaches in modern logic and reasoning. The theory of abstract argumentation introduced by Dung in 1995 has shifted the focus from the internal structure of arguments to relations among arguments, and temporal dynamics for abstract argumentation was proposed by Barringer, Gabbay and Woods in 2005. In this tradition, we see arguments as reasoning processes, and the interaction among them as a coordination process.We argue that abstract argumentation can adopt ideas and techniques from formal theories of coordination, and as an example we propose a model of sequential abstract argumentation loosely inspired by Reo’s model of exogenous coordination. We show how the argumentation model can represent the temporal dynamics of the liar paradox and predator-prey like behaviour

Weighted logics for artificial intelligence : an introductory discussion

International audienceBefore presenting the contents of the special issue, we propose a structured introductory overview of a landscape of the weighted logics (in a general sense) that can be found in the Artificial Intelligence literature, highlighting their fundamental differences and their application areas