Handling controversial arguments by matrix

by   Xu Yuming, et al.
Shandong University

We introduce matrix and its block to the Dung's theory of argumentation framework. It is showed that each argumentation framework has a matrix representation, and the indirect attack relation and indirect defence relation can be characterized by computing the matrix. This provide a powerful mathematics way to determine the "controversial arguments" in an argumentation framework. Also, we introduce several kinds of blocks based on the matrix, and various prudent semantics of argumentation frameworks can all be determined by computing and comparing the matrices and their blocks which we have defined. In contrast with traditional method of directed graph, the matrix method has an excellent advantage: computability(even can be realized on computer easily). So, there is an intensive perspective to import the theory of matrix to the research of argumentation frameworks and its related areas.


page 1

page 2

page 3

page 4


The matrices of argumentation frameworks

We introduce matrix and its block to the Dung's theory of argumentation ...

A matrix approach for computing extensions of argumentation frameworks

The matrices and their sub-blocks are introduced into the study of deter...

Technical report of "Empirical Study on Human Evaluation of Complex Argumentation Frameworks"

In abstract argumentation, multiple argumentation semantics have been pr...

The MatrixX Solver For Argumentation Frameworks

MatrixX is a solver for Abstract Argumentation Frameworks. Offensive and...

Forms and Norms of Indecision in Argumentation Theory

One main goal of argumentation theory is to evaluate arguments and to de...

Learning Gradual Argumentation Frameworks using Genetic Algorithms

Gradual argumentation frameworks represent arguments and their relations...

A Note on Rich Incomplete Argumentation Frameworks

Recently, qualitative uncertainty in abstract argumentation has received...


  • [1] P. Baroni, M. Giacomin, On principle-based evaluation of extension-based argumentation semantics, Artificial Intelligence 171 (2007), 675-700.
  • [2] T. J. M. Bench-Capon, Paul E. Dunne, Argumentation in artificial intelligence, Artificial intelligence 171(2007)619-641
  • [3] M.Caminada, Semi-stable semantics, in: Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and its Applications, vol. 144, IOS Press, 2006, pp. 121-130
  • [4] C.Cayrol, M.C.Lagasquie-Schiex, Graduality in argumentation, J. AI Res. 23 (2005)245-297
  • [5] C.Cayrol, M.C.Lagasquie-Schiex, Handling controversial arguments in bipolar argumentation frameworks, in: Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, vol.3571, Springer-Verlag, 2005,pp.378-389
  • [6] C.Cayrol, F.D.Saint-Cyr, M.C.Lagasquie-Schiex, Change in argumentation frameworks; adding an argument, J. AI Res. 38 (2010)49-84
  • [7] S.Coste-Marquis, C.Devred, P. Marquis, Symmetric argumentation frameworks, in: Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, vol. 3571, Springer-Verlag, 2005, pp. 317-328
  • [8] S.Coste-Marquis, C.Devred, P. Marquis, Prudent semantics for argumentation frameworks, in: Proc. 17th ICTAI, 2005, pp. 568-572
  • [9]

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

  • [10] 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.
  • [11] 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
  • [12] P.M. Dunne, Computational properties of argument systems satisfying graph-theoretic constrains, Artificial Intelligence 171 (2007), 701-729.
  • [13] P.M. Dunne, T. J. M. Bench-Capon, Coherence in finite argument systems, Artificial intelligence 141(2002)187-203
  • [14] P.M. Dunne, T. J. M. Bench-Capon, Two party immediate response disputes: properties and efficiency, Artificial Intelligence 149 (2003), 221-250.
  • [15] W.Dvor̆ák, S.Woltron, On the intertranslatability of argumentation semantics, J. AI Res. 41 (2011)445-475
  • [16] H.Jakobovits, D.Vermeir, Dialectic semantics for argumentation frameworks, in: Proc. 7th ICAIL, 1999, pp. 53-62
  • [17] E. Oikarinen, S.Woltron, Characterizing strong equivalence for argumentation frameworks, Artificial intelligence(2011), doi:10.1016/j.artint.2011.06.003.
  • [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
  • [20] X. Yuming, The matrices of argumentation frameworks, in: arXiv:1110.1416v1, 1-20