Bipolarity in temporal argumentation frameworks

被引:15
|
作者
Budan, Maximiliano C. D. [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Laura Cobo, Maria [1 ]
Martinez, Diego C. [1 ,2 ]
Simari, Guillermo R. [1 ]
机构
[1] UNS, CONICET, ICIC, Dept Ciencias & Ingn Computac, San Andres 800, RA-8000 Bahia Blanca, Buenos Aires, Argentina
[2] Consejo Nacl Invest Cient & Tecn, Av Rivadavia 1917, Buenos Aires, DF, Argentina
[3] Univ Nacl Santiago Del Estero, Dept Math, Belgranos 1912, RA-4200 Capital, Santiago Del Es, Argentina
关键词
Human-like reasoning; Temporal argumentation; Dynamic argumentation models; Timed interval-based semantics; Bipolarity; ACCEPTABILITY; SUPPORT;
D O I
10.1016/j.ijar.2017.01.013
中图分类号
TP18 [人工智能理论];
学科分类号
081104 ; 0812 ; 0835 ; 1405 ;
摘要
A Timed Argumentation Framework (TAF) is a formalism where arguments are only valid for consideration during specific intervals of time, called availability intervals, which are defined for every individual argument. The original proposal is based on a single abstract notion of attack between arguments that remains static and permanent in time. Thus, in general, when identifying the set of acceptable arguments, the outcome associated with a TAF will vary over time. Here, we are introducing an extension of TAF adding the capability of modeling a support relation between arguments. In this sense, the resulting framework provides a suitable model for different time-dependent issues; thus, the main contribution of this work is to provide an enhanced framework for modeling a positive (support) and negative (attack) interaction which varies over time, features that are highly relevant in many real-world situations. This addition leads to a Timed Bipolar Argumentation Framework (T-BAF), where classical argument extensions can be defined, aiming at advancing in the integration of temporal argumentation in different application domains. (C) 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:1 / 22
页数:22
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Verification in incomplete argumentation frameworks
    Baumeister, Dorothea
    Neugebauer, Daniel
    Rothe, Joerg
    Schadrack, Hilmar
    ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, 2018, 264 : 1 - 26
  • [32] Argumentation Frameworks with Attack Classification
    Vassiliades, Alexandros
    Flouris, Giorgos
    Patkos, Theodore
    Bikakis, Antonis
    Bassiliades, Nick
    Plexousakis, Dimitris
    JOURNAL OF LOGIC AND COMPUTATION, 2023, 33 (02) : 192 - 229
  • [33] Computation in Extended Argumentation Frameworks
    Dunne, Paul E.
    Modgil, Sanjay
    Bench-Capon, Trevor
    ECAI 2010 - 19TH EUROPEAN CONFERENCE ON ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, 2010, 215 : 119 - 124
  • [34] Constrained Incomplete Argumentation Frameworks
    Mailly, Jean-Guy
    SYMBOLIC AND QUANTITATIVE APPROACHES TO REASONING WITH UNCERTAINTY, ECSQARU 2021, 2021, 12897 : 103 - 116
  • [35] Controllability of Control Argumentation Frameworks
    Niskanen, Andreas
    Neugebauer, Daniel
    Jaervisalo, Matti
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE TWENTY-NINTH INTERNATIONAL JOINT CONFERENCE ON ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, 2020, : 1855 - 1861
  • [36] Counterfactual Reasoning in Argumentation Frameworks
    Sakama, Chiaki
    COMPUTATIONAL MODELS OF ARGUMENT, 2014, 266 : 385 - 396
  • [37] Merging of Abstract Argumentation Frameworks
    Delobelle, Jerome
    Haret, Adrian
    Konieczny, Sebastien
    Mailly, Jean-Guy
    Rossit, Julien
    Woltran, Stefan
    FIFTEENTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON THE PRINCIPLES OF KNOWLEDGE REPRESENTATION AND REASONING, 2016, : 33 - 42
  • [38] Robust semantics for argumentation frameworks
    Jakobovits, H
    Vermeir, D
    JOURNAL OF LOGIC AND COMPUTATION, 1999, 9 (02) : 215 - 261
  • [39] On the role of preferences in argumentation frameworks
    Amgoud, Leila
    Vesic, Srdjan
    22ND INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON TOOLS WITH ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (ICTAI 2010), PROCEEDINGS, VOL 1, 2010,
  • [40] On the Complexity of Probabilistic Abstract Argumentation Frameworks
    Fazzinga, Bettina
    Flesca, Sergio
    Parisi, Francesco
    ACM TRANSACTIONS ON COMPUTATIONAL LOGIC, 2015, 16 (03)