Search engine for discovering works of Art, research articles, and books related to Art and Culture
ShareThis
Javascript must be enabled to continue!

Moving Between Argumentation Frameworks

View through CrossRef
Abstract argument frameworks have been used for various applications within multi-agent systems, including reasoning and negotiation. Different argument frameworks make use of different inter-argument relations and semantics to identify some subset of arguments as coherent, yet there is no easy way to map between these frameworks; most commonly, this is done manually according to human intuition. In response, in this paper, we show how a set of arguments described using Dung's or Nielsen's argument frameworks can be mapped from and to an argument framework that includes both attack and support relations. This mapping preserves the framework's semantics in the sense that an argument deemed coherent in one framework is coherent in the other under a related semantics. Interestingly, this translation is not unique, with one set of arguments in the support based framework mapping to multiple argument sets within the attack only framework. Additionally, we show how EAF can be mapped into a subset of the argument interchange format (AIF). By using this mapping, any other argument framework using this subset of AIF can be translated into a DAF while preserving its semantics.
Title: Moving Between Argumentation Frameworks
Description:
Abstract argument frameworks have been used for various applications within multi-agent systems, including reasoning and negotiation.
Different argument frameworks make use of different inter-argument relations and semantics to identify some subset of arguments as coherent, yet there is no easy way to map between these frameworks; most commonly, this is done manually according to human intuition.
In response, in this paper, we show how a set of arguments described using Dung's or Nielsen's argument frameworks can be mapped from and to an argument framework that includes both attack and support relations.
This mapping preserves the framework's semantics in the sense that an argument deemed coherent in one framework is coherent in the other under a related semantics.
Interestingly, this translation is not unique, with one set of arguments in the support based framework mapping to multiple argument sets within the attack only framework.
Additionally, we show how EAF can be mapped into a subset of the argument interchange format (AIF).
By using this mapping, any other argument framework using this subset of AIF can be translated into a DAF while preserving its semantics.

Related Results

Machine Arguing: From Data and Rules to Argumentation Frameworks
Machine Arguing: From Data and Rules to Argumentation Frameworks
Argumentation frameworks have been widely studied both in terms of formal properties they exhibit under different semantics and in terms of applications they can support. But where...
A logic of defeasible argumentation: Constructing arguments in justification logic
A logic of defeasible argumentation: Constructing arguments in justification logic
In the 1980s, Pollock’s work on default reasons started the quest in the AI community for a formal system of defeasible argumentation. The main goal of this paper is to provide a l...
Argumentation and explainable artificial intelligence: a survey
Argumentation and explainable artificial intelligence: a survey
AbstractArgumentation and eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) are closely related, as in the recent years, Argumentation has been used for providing Explainability to AI. Arg...
Kettle logic in abstract argumentation
Kettle logic in abstract argumentation
Abstract Kettle logic is a colloquial term that describes an agent’s advancement of inconsistent arguments in order to defeat a particular claim. Intuitively, a cons...
Phys’AR as a Learning Innovation: Strengthening Critical Thinking and Argumentation Skills in Applied Physics
Phys’AR as a Learning Innovation: Strengthening Critical Thinking and Argumentation Skills in Applied Physics
Critical thinking and argumentation are essential twenty-first-century skills in physics education. Yet, conventional teaching methods often fail to provide students with sufficien...
On Extension Counting Problems in Argumentation Frameworks
On Extension Counting Problems in Argumentation Frameworks
We consider the problem of counting (without explicitly enumerating) extensions prescribed by multiple-status semantics in abstract argumentation. Referring to Dung's traditional s...
Credulous and Skeptical Acceptance in Incomplete Argumentation Frameworks
Credulous and Skeptical Acceptance in Incomplete Argumentation Frameworks
We propose natural generalizations of the credulous and skeptical acceptance problems in abstract argumentation for incomplete argumentation frameworks [3]. This continues earlier ...
Impact of Dialogic Argumentation Pedagogy on Grade 8 Students’ Epistemic Knowledge of Science
Impact of Dialogic Argumentation Pedagogy on Grade 8 Students’ Epistemic Knowledge of Science
This study explores the effect of dialogic argumentation on grade 8 students’ epistemic knowledge of science in physics. A quasi-experimental design was employed to compare experim...

Back to Top