On the bipolarity in argumentation frameworks
نویسندگان
چکیده
In this paper, we propose a survey of the use of bipolarity in argumentation frameworks, i.e. the presence of two kinds of entities (a positive entity and a negative entity). An argumentation process follows three steps: building the arguments and the interactions between them, valuating the arguments using or not the interactions and finally defining the acceptability of the arguments. This paper shows on various applications and with some formal definitions that bipolarity appears (in some cases since always) and can be used in each step of this process under different forms.
منابع مشابه
On bipolarity in argumentation frameworks
In this chapter, we propose a survey of the use of bipolarity in argumentation frameworks. On the one hand, the notion of bipolarity relies on the presence of two kinds of entities which have a diametrically opposed nature and which represent repellent forces (a positive entity and a negative entity). The notion exists in various domains (for example with the representation of preferences in ar...
متن کاملBipolarity in Argumentation Graphs: Towards a Better Understanding
Different abstract argumentation frameworkshavebeenused forvariousapplicationswithin multi-agents systems.Among them,bipolar frameworksmakeuseofbothattackandsupport relations between arguments. However, there is no single interpretation of the support, and the handling of bipolarity cannot avoid a deeper analysis of the notion of support. In this paper we consider three recent proposals for spe...
متن کاملReasoning about Preferences in Structured Extended Argumentation Frameworks
This paper combines two recent extensions of Dung’s abstract argumentation frameworks in order to define an abstract formalism for reasoning about preferences in structured argumentation frameworks. First, extended argumentation frameworks extend Dung frameworks with attacks on attacks, thus providing an abstract dialectical semantics that accommodates argumentation-based reasoning about prefer...
متن کاملOn the Existence of Semi-Stable Extensions
In this paper, we describe an open problem in abstract argumentation theory: the precise conditions under which semi-stable extensions exist. Although each finite argumentation framework can be shown to have at least one semi-stable extension, this is no longer the case when infinite argumentation frameworks are considered. This puts semi-stable semantics between stable and preferred semantics....
متن کاملVerification in Incomplete Argumentation Frameworks
We tackle the problem of expressing incomplete knowledge in abstract argumentation frameworks originally introduced by Dung [15]. In applications, incomplete argumentation frameworks may arise as intermediate states in an elicitation process, or when merging different beliefs about an argumentation framework’s state, or in cases where complete information cannot be obtained. We consider two spe...
متن کامل