In most existing argumentation systems, only one kind of interaction is considered between arguments. It is the so-called attack relation. However, recent studies on argumentation [23, 34, 35, 4] have shown that another kind of interaction may exist between the arguments. Indeed, an argument can attack another argument, but it can also support another one. This suggests a notion of bipolarity, i.e. the existence of two independent kinds of information which have a diametrically opposed nature and which represent repellent forces.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
L. Amgoud. Contribution à l’intégration des préférences dans le raisonnement argumentatif. PhD thesis, Université Paul Sabatier, Toulouse, July 1999.
L. Amgoud. Towards a formal model for task allocation via coalition formation. In Proc. of AAMAS, pages 1185–1186, 2005.
L. Amgoud, J.-F. Bonnefon, and H. Prade. An argumentation-based approach to multiple criteria decision. In Proc. of ECSQARU, pages 269–280, 2005.
L. Amgoud, C. Cayrol, and M. Lagasquie-Schiex. On the bipolarity in argumentation frameworks. In Proc. of the 10 th NMR-UF workshop, pages 1–9, 2004.4
L. Amgoud, C. Cayrol, M.-C. Lagasquie-Schiex, and P. Livet. On bipolarity in argumentation frameworks. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 23:1062–1093, 2008.
S. Benferhat, D. Dubois, S. Kaci, and H. Prade. Bipolar representation and fusion of preferences in the possibilistic logic framework. In Proc. of KR, pages 158–169, 2002.
C. Berge. Graphs and Hypergraphs. North-Holland Mathematical Library, 1973.
P. Besnard and A. Hunter. A logic-based theory of deductive arguments. Artificial Intelligence, 128 (1-2):203–235, 2001.
A. Bochman. Collective argumentation and disjunctive programming. Journal of Logic and Computation, 13 (3):405–428, 2003.
C. Boutilier. Towards a logic for qualitative decision theory. In Proc. of KR, pages 75–86, 1994.
G. Cabanac, M. Chevalier, C. Chrisment, and C. Julien. A social validation of collaborative annotations on digital documents. In Proc. of IWAC, pages 31–40, 2005.
G. Cabanac, M. Chevalier, C. Chrisment, and C. Julien. Collective annotation: Perspectives for information retrieval improvement. In Proc. of RIAO, 2007.
C. Cayrol and M. Lagasquie-Schiex. Gradual valuation for bipolar argumentation frameworks. In Proc of the 8 th ECSQARU, pages 366–377, 2005.
C. Cayrol and M. Lagasquie-Schiex. On the acceptability of arguments in bipolar argumentation frameworks. In Proc of the 8 th ECSQARU, pages 378–389, 2005.
C. Cayrol and M.-C. Lagasquie-Schiex. Gradual handling of contradiction in argumentation frameworks. In Intelligent Systems for Information Processing: From representation to Applications, chapter Reasoning, pages 179–190. Elsevier, 2003.
C. Cayrol and M.-C. Lagasquie-Schiex. Graduality in argumentation. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 23:245–297, 2005.
C. Cayrol and M.-C. Lagasquie-Schiex. Coalitions of arguments in bipolar argumentation frameworks. In Proc. of CMNA, pages 14–20, 2007.
V. Dang and N. Jennings. Generating coalition structures with finite bound from the optimal guarantees. In Proc. of AAMAS, pages 564–571, 2004.
D. Dubois and H. Fargier. On the qualitative comparison of sets of positive and negative affects. In Proc. of ECSQARU, pages 305–316, 2005.
D. Dubois and H. Prade. A bipolar possibilitic representation of knowledge and preferences and its applications. In Proc. of WILF (LNCS 3849), pages 1–10, 2006.
P. M. Dung. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence, 77:321–357, 1995.
H. Jakobovits and D. Vermeir. Robust semantics for argumentation frameworks. Journal of logic and computation, 9(2):215–261, 1999.
N. Karacapilidis and D. Papadias. Computer supported argumentation and collaborative decision making: the hermes system. Information systems, 26(4):259–277, 2001.
P. Krause, S. Ambler, M. Elvang, and J. Fox. A logic of argumentation for reasoning under uncertainty. Computational Intelligence, 11 (1):113–131, 1995.
J. Lang, L. Van der Torre, and E. Weydert. Utilitarian desires. Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agents Systems, 5(3):329–363, 2002.
J. Nielsen. On the number of maximal independent sets in a graph. Technical Report RS 02-15, Center for Basic Research in Computer Science (BRICS), April 2002.
S. Nielsen and S. Parsons. A generalization of Dung’s abstract framework for argumentation. In Proc. of the 3 rd WS on Argumentation in multi-agent systems, 2006.
N. Oren and T. J. Norman. Semantics for evidence-based argumentation. In Proc. of COMMA, pages 276–284, 2008.
S. Parsons. Normative argumentation and qualitative probability. In Proc. of ECSQARU, pages 466–480, 1997.
H. Prakken and G. Sartor. Argument-based extended logic programming with defeasible priorities. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics, 7:25–75, 1997.
S. W. Tan and J. Pearl. Specification and evaluation of preferences under uncertainty. In Proc. of KR, pages 530–539, 1994.
S. Toulmin. The Uses of Arguments. Cambridge University Press, Mass., 1958.
B. Verheij. Two Approaches to Dialectical Argumentation: Admissible Sets and Argumentation Stages. In Proc. of Dutch Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 357–368, 1996.
B. Verheij. Automated argument assistance for lawyers. In Proc. of International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 43–52, 1999.
B. Verheij. Deflog: on the logical interpretation of prima facie justified assumptions. Journal of Logic in Computation, 13:319–346, 2003.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Springer-Verlag US
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, MC. (2009). Bipolar abstract argumentation systems. In: Simari, G., Rahwan, I. (eds) Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-98197-0_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-98197-0_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-0-387-98196-3
Online ISBN: 978-0-387-98197-0
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)