A matrix approach for computing extensions of argumentation frameworks

09/10/2012
by   Xu Yuming, et al.
Shandong University
0

The matrices and their sub-blocks are introduced into the study of determining various extensions in the sense of Dung's theory of argumentation frameworks. It is showed that each argumentation framework has its matrix representations, and the core semantics defined by Dung can be characterized by specific sub-blocks of the matrix. Furthermore, the elementary permutations of a matrix are employed by which an efficient matrix approach for finding out all extensions under a given semantics is obtained. Different from several established approaches, such as the graph labelling algorithm, Constraint Satisfaction Problem algorithm, the matrix approach not only put the mathematic idea into the investigation for finding out various extensions, but also completely achieve the goal to compute all the extensions needed.

READ FULL TEXT VIEW PDF

page 1

page 2

page 3

page 4

10/07/2011

The matrices of argumentation frameworks

We introduce matrix and its block to the Dung's theory of argumentation ...
02/23/2018

A Matrix Approach for Weighted Argumentation Frameworks: a Preliminary Report

The assignment of weights to attacks in a classical Argumentation Framew...
10/18/2011

Handling controversial arguments by matrix

We introduce matrix and its block to the Dung's theory of argumentation ...
05/15/2019

Applying Abstract Argumentation Theory to Cooperative Game Theory

We apply ideas from abstract argumentation theory to study cooperative g...
09/29/2021

The MatrixX Solver For Argumentation Frameworks

MatrixX is a solver for Abstract Argumentation Frameworks. Offensive and...
05/06/2022

Rediscovering Argumentation Principles Utilizing Collective Attacks

Argumentation Frameworks (AFs) are a key formalism in AI research. Their...
02/29/2016

Range-based argumentation semantics as 2-valued models

Characterizations of semi-stable and stage extensions in terms of 2-valu...

References

  • [1] L. Amgoud, C. Devred, Argumentation frameworks as Constraint Satisfaction Problems, In Proc. SUM, volume 6929 of LNCS, 2011, 110-122. Springer.
  • [2] P. Baroni, M. Giacomin, On principle-based evaluation of extension-based argumentation semantics, Artificial Intelligence 171 (2007), 675-700.
  • [3] T. J. M. Bench-Capon, Paul E. Dunne, Argumentation in artificial intelligence, Artificial intelligence 171(2007)619-641
  • [4] M. Caminada, Semi-stable semantics, in: Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and its Applications, vol. 144, IOS Press, 2006, pp. 121-130.
  • [5] C. Cayrol, M. C. Lagasquie-Schiex, Graduality in argumentation, J. AI Res. 23 (2005)245-297.
  • [6] S. Coste-Marquis, C. Devred, Symmetric argumentation frameworks, in: Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, vol. 3571, Springer-Verlag, 2005, pp. 317-328.
  • [7] S. Coste-Marquis, C.Devred, P. Marquis, Prudent semantics for argumentation frameworks, in: Proc. 17th ICTAI, 2005, pp. 568-572.
  • [8]

    Y. Dimopoulos, A. Torres, Graph theoretical structures in logic programs and default theories, Teoret. Comput. Sci. 170(1996)209-244.

  • [9] P. M. Dung, On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and -person games, Artificial Intelligence 77 (1995), 321-357.
  • [10] P. M. Dung, P. Mancarella, F. Toni, A dialectic procedure for sceptical assumption-based argumentation, in: Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and its Applications, vol. 144, IOS Press, 2006, pp. 145-156.
  • [11] P. E. Dunne, Computational properties of argument systems satisfying graph-theoretic constrains, Artificial Intelligence 171 (2007), 701-729.
  • [12] P. E. Dunne, T. J. M. Bench-Capon, Coherence in finite argument systems, Artificial intelligence 141(2002)187-203.
  • [13] P. E. Dunne, T. J. M. Bench-Capon, Two party immediate response disputes: properties and efficiency, Artificial Intelligence 149 (2003), 221-250.
  • [14] H. Jakobovits, D. Vermeir, Dialectic semantics for argumentation frameworks, in: Proc. 7th ICAIL, 1999, pp. 53-62.
  • [15] S. Modgil, M. Caminada, Proof Theories and Algorithms for Abstract Argumentation Frameworks, In: Rahwan I., Simari G, editors. Argumentation in AI. Springer; 2009. p. 105-129.
  • [16] E. Oikarinen, S. Woltron, Characterizing strong equivalence for argumentation frameworks, Artificial intelligence(2011), doi:10.1016/j.artint. 2011.06.003.
  • [17] J. L. Pollock, Cognitive Carpentry, A Blueprint for How to Build a Person, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1995.
  • [18] G. Vreeswijk, Abstract argumentation system, Artificial intelligence 90(1997)225-279.
  • [19] G. Vreeswijk, H. Pakken, Credulous and sceptical argument games for preferred semantics, in: Proceedings of JELIA’2000, the 7th European Workshop on Logic for Artificial Intelligence, Berlin, 2000, pp. 224-238.