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] Credulous acceptance in high-order argumentation frameworks with necessities: An incremental approach
    Alfano, Gianvincenzo
    Cohen, Andrea
    Gottifredi, Sebastian
    Greco, Sergio
    Parisi, Francesco
    Simari, Guillermo R.
    ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, 2024, 333
  • [32] Efficiently computing extensions' probabilities over probabilistic Bipolar Abstract Argumentation Frameworks
    Fazzinga, Bettina
    Flesca, Sergio
    Furfaro, Filippo
    Scala, Francesco
    INTELLIGENZA ARTIFICIALE, 2019, 13 (02) : 189 - 200
  • [33] A comprehensive study of argumentation frameworks with sets of attacking arguments
    Flouris, Giorgos
    Bikakis, Antonis
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF APPROXIMATE REASONING, 2019, 109 : 55 - 86
  • [34] On the preferred extensions of argumentation frameworks: Bijections with naive sets
    Elaroussi, Mohammed
    Nourine, Lhouari
    Radjef, Mohammed Said
    Vilmin, Simon
    INFORMATION PROCESSING LETTERS, 2023, 181
  • [35] A Boolean model for conflict-freeness in argumentation frameworks
    Wu, Jiachao
    AIMS MATHEMATICS, 2023, 8 (02): : 3913 - 3919
  • [36] Coalitions of Arguments: A Tool for Handling Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks
    Cayrol, Claudette
    Lagasquie-Schiex, Marie-Christine
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS, 2010, 25 (01) : 83 - 109
  • [37] Semantics of Extended Argumentation Frameworks Defined by Renovation Sets
    Li, Hengfei
    Wu, Jiachao
    PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICE OF MULTI-AGENT SYSTEMS (PRIMA 2019), 2019, 11873 : 532 - 540
  • [38] Argumentation Frameworks with Recursive Attacks and Evidence-Based Supports
    Cayrol, Claudette
    Fandinno, Jorge
    del Cerro, Luis Farinas
    Lagasquie-Schiex, Marie-Christine
    FOUNDATIONS OF INFORMATION AND KNOWLEDGE SYSTEMS, FOIKS 2018, 2018, 10833 : 150 - 169
  • [39] Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks with a dual relation between defeat and defence
    Alcantara, Joao
    Cordeiro, Renan
    JOURNAL OF LOGIC AND COMPUTATION, 2024,
  • [40] Guaranteeing admissibility of abstract argumentation frameworks with rationality and feasibility constraints
    Chen, Weiwei
    JOURNAL OF LOGIC AND COMPUTATION, 2021, 31 (08) : 2133 - 2158