Abstract
This paper is centered on the family of Dung’s finite argumentation frameworks when the attacks relation is symmetric (and nonempty and irreflexive). We show that while this family does not contain any well-founded framework, every element of it is both coherent and relatively grounded. Then we focus on the acceptability problems for the various semantics introduced by Dung, yet generalized to sets of arguments. We show that only two distinct forms of acceptability are possible when the considered frameworks are symmetric. Those forms of acceptability are quite simple, but tractable; this contrasts with the general case for which all the forms of acceptability are intractable (except for the ones based on grounded or naive extensions).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Toulmin, S.: The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1958)
Prakken, A., Vreeswijk, G.: Logics for defeasible argumentation. In: Gabbay, D., Guenthner, F. (eds.) Handbook of Philosophical Logic, 2nd edn., vol. 4, pp. 219–318. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2002)
Bondarenko, A., Dung, P.M., Kowalski, R., Toni, F.: An abstract, argumentation-theoretic approach to default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 93, 63–101 (1997)
Parsons, S., Sierra, C., Jennings, N.: Agents that reason and negotiate by arguing. Journal of Logic and Computation 8(3), 261–292 (1998)
Parsons, S., Wooldrige, M., Amgoud, L.: Properties and complexity of some formal inter-agent dialogues. Journal of Logic and Computation 13, 348–376 (2003)
Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence 77, 321–358 (1995)
Elvang-Gøransson, M., Fox, J., Krause, P.: Dialectic reasoning with inconsistent information. In: Proceedings of the 9th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 114–121 (1993)
Pollock, J.: How to reason defeasibly. Artificial Intelligence 57, 1–42 (1992)
Simari, G., Loui, R.: A mathematical treatment of defeasible reasoning and its implementation. Artificial Intelligence 53, 125–157 (1992)
Vreeswijk, G.: Abstract argumentation systems. Artificial Intelligence 90, 225–279 (1997)
Elvang-Gøransson, M., Fox, J., Krause, P.: Acceptability of arguments as logical uncertainty. In: Proceedings of the European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning and Uncertainty, pp. 85–90 (1993)
Elvang-Gøransson, M., Hunter, A.: Argumentative logics: Reasoning with classically inconsistent information. Data and Knowledge Engineering 16, 125–145 (1995)
Besnard, P., Hunter, A.: A logic-based theory of deductive arguments. Artificial Intelligence 128, 203–235 (2001)
Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C.: On the acceptability of arguments in preference-based argumentation. In: Proceedings of the 14th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 1–7 (1998)
Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C.: Inferring from inconsistency in preference-based argumentation frameworks. Journal of Automated Reasoning 29, 125–169 (2002)
Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C.: A reasoning model based on the production of acceptable arguments. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 34, 197–215 (2002)
Cayrol, C.: From non-monotonic syntax-based entailment to preference-based argumentation. In: Froidevaux, C., Kohlas, J. (eds.) ECSQARU 1995. LNCS, vol. 946, Springer, Heidelberg (1995)
Cayrol, C.: On the relation between argumentation and non-monotonic coherence-based entailment. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (1995)
Dimopoulos, Y., Nebel, B., Toni, F.: On the computional complexity of assumption-based argumentation for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 141, 57–78 (2002)
Baroni, P., Giacomin, M.: Extending abstract argumentation systems theory. Artificial Intelligence 120, 251–270 (2000)
Baroni, P., Giacomin, M.: Solving semantic problems with odd-length cycles in argumentation. In: Nielsen, T.D., Zhang, N.L. (eds.) ECSQARU 2003. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2711, pp. 440–451. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)
Baroni, P., Giacomin, M.: A recursive approach to argumentation: motivation and perspectives. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning, pp. 50–58 (2004)
Cayrol, C., Doutre, S., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.C., Mengin, J.: Minimal defence: a refinement of the preferred semantics for argumentation frameworks. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning, pp. 408–415 (2002)
Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.C.: Gradual handling of contradiction in argumentation frameworks. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Information Processing and Management of Uncertainty in Knowledge-based Systems, pp. 83–90 (2002)
Dimopoulos, Y., Torres, A.: Graph theoretical structures in logic programs and default theories. Theoretical Computer Science 170, 209–244 (1996)
Dunne, P., Bench-Capon, T.: Coherence in finite argument system. Artificial Intelligence 141, 187–203 (2002)
Papadimitriou, C.: Computational complexity. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1994)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2005 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Coste-Marquis, S., Devred, C., Marquis, P. (2005). Symmetric Argumentation Frameworks. In: Godo, L. (eds) Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty. ECSQARU 2005. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 3571. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/11518655_28
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/11518655_28
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-27326-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-31888-0
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)