Symmetric Argumentation Frameworks

This paper is centered on the family of Dung's finite argumentation frameworks when the attacks relation is symmetric (and nonempty and irreflexive). We show that while this family does not contain any well-founded framework, every element of it is both coherent and relatively grounded. Then we focus on the acceptability problems for the various semantics introduced by Dung, yet generalized to sets of arguments. We show that only two distinct forms of acceptability are possible when the considered frameworks are symmetric. Those forms of acceptability are quite simple, but tractable; this contrasts with the general case for which all the forms of acceptability are intractable (except for the ones based on grounded or naive extensions).

[1]  S. Toulmin.  The uses of argument , 1960 .

[2]  Claudette Cayrol,et al.  From Non-Monotonic Syntax-Based Entailment to Preference-Based Argumentation , 1995, ECSQARU.

[3]  Anthony Hunter,et al.  A logic-based theory of deductive arguments , 2001, Artif. Intell..

[4]  Bernhard Nebel,et al.  On the computational complexity of assumption-based argumentation for default reasoning , 2002, Artif. Intell..

[5]  Phan Minh Dung,et al.  On the Acceptability of Arguments and its Fundamental Role in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Logic Programming and n-Person Games , 1995, Artif. Intell..

[6]  Gerard Vreeswijk,et al.  Abstract Argumentation Systems , 1997, Artif. Intell..

[7]  Michael Wooldridge,et al.  Properties and Complexity of Some Formal Inter-agent Dialogues , 2003, J. Log. Comput..

[8]  Phan Minh Dung,et al.  An Abstract, Argumentation-Theoretic Approach to Default Reasoning , 1997, Artif. Intell..

[9]  Claudette Cayrol,et al.  A Reasoning Model Based on the Production of Acceptable Arguments , 2002, Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence.

[10]  Michael Clarke,et al.  Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning and Uncertainty , 1991, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[11]  Pietro Baroni,et al.  Solving Semantic Problems with Odd-Length Cycles in Argumentation , 2003, ECSQARU.

[12]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Logics for Defeasible Argumentation , 2001 .

[13]  Claudette Cayrol,et al.  Inferring from Inconsistency in Preference-Based Argumentation Frameworks , 2002, Journal of Automated Reasoning.

[14]  Nicholas R. Jennings,et al.  Agents That Reason and Negotiate by Arguing , 1998, J. Log. Comput..

[15]  Guillermo Ricardo Simari,et al.  A Mathematical Treatment of Defeasible Reasoning and its Implementation , 1992, Artif. Intell..

[16]  Christos H. Papadimitriou,et al.  Computational complexity , 1993 .

[17]  Dov M. Gabbay,et al.  Handbook of Philosophical Logic , 2002 .

[18]  Pietro Baroni,et al.  A recursive approach to argumentation: motivation and perspectives , 2004, NMR.

[19]  Claudette Cayrol,et al.  On the Acceptability of Arguments in Preference-based Argumentation , 1998, UAI.

[20]  Yannis Dimopoulos,et al.  Graph theoretical structures in logic programs and default theories , 1996 .

[21]  Paul J. Krause,et al.  Acceptability of arguments as 'logical uncertainty' , 1993, ECSQARU.

[22]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  Coherence in finite argument systems , 2002, Artif. Intell..

[23]  Pietro Baroni,et al.  Extending abstract argumentation systems theory , 2000, Artif. Intell..

[24]  Paul J. Krause,et al.  Dialectic reasoning with inconsistent information , 1993, UAI.

[25]  Morten Elvang-Gøransson,et al.  Argumentative Logics: Reasoning with Classically Inconsistent Information , 1995, Data Knowl. Eng..

[26]  C. Cayrol,et al.  Gradual handling of contradiction in argumentation frameworks , 2003 .

[27]  Claudette Cayrol,et al.  "Minimal defence": a refinement of the preferred semantics for argumentation frameworks , 2002, NMR.

[28]  John L. Pollock,et al.  How to Reason Defeasibly , 1992, Artif. Intell..

[29]  Claudette Cayrol,et al.  On the Relation between Argumentation and Non-monotonic Coherence-Based Entailment , 1995, IJCAI.