Bipolarity in temporal argumentation frameworks

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. Bipolar frameworks are equipped with temporal availability for arguments.Admissibility-based extensions for timed argumentation are characterized.Several relations between semantics in timed argumentation are presented.Relations between the classic bipolar and extension-based semantics are studied for BAFs.

[1]  Anthony Hunter Ramification Analysis Using Causal Mapping , 2000, Data Knowl. Eng..

[2]  Dov M. Gabbay,et al.  Modal and temporal argumentation networks , 2012, Argument Comput..

[3]  Guillermo Ricardo Simari,et al.  A survey of different approaches to support in argumentation systems , 2013, The Knowledge Engineering Review.

[4]  Guillermo Ricardo Simari,et al.  Argument-based mixed recommenders and their application to movie suggestion , 2014, Expert Syst. Appl..

[5]  H. Barringera,et al.  Temporal , numerical and meta-level dynamics in argumentation networks , 2012 .

[6]  Phan Minh Dung,et al.  On the Acceptability of Arguments and its Fundamental Role in Nonmonotonic Reasoning and Logic Programming , 1993, IJCAI.

[7]  L. Amgoud,et al.  On bipolarity in argumentation frameworks , 2008 .

[8]  Sylwia Polberg,et al.  Revisiting Support in Abstract Argumentation Systems , 2014, COMMA.

[9]  Juan Carlos Augusto,et al.  A Temporal Argumentative System , 1999, AI Commun..

[10]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  Argumentation in artificial intelligence , 2007, Artif. Intell..

[11]  Guillermo Ricardo Simari,et al.  Modeling time and valuation in structured argumentation frameworks , 2015, Inf. Sci..

[12]  Guillermo Ricardo Simari,et al.  An Approach to Argumentation Considering Attacks through Time , 2012, SUM.

[13]  Nicholas R. Jennings,et al.  Negotiation in multi-agent systems , 1999, The Knowledge Engineering Review.

[14]  Anthony Hunter Ramification analysis with structured news reports using temporal argumentation , 2001 .

[15]  Guillermo R. Simari,et al.  Temporal Defeasible Reasoning , 2001, Knowledge and Information Systems.

[16]  Guillermo Ricardo Simari,et al.  Backing and Undercutting in Defeasible Logic Programming , 2011, ECSQARU.

[17]  Ofer Arieli Conflict-Tolerant Semantics for Argumentation Frameworks , 2012, JELIA.

[18]  James F. Allen Maintaining knowledge about temporal intervals , 1983, CACM.

[19]  Ana Gabriela Maguitman,et al.  Integrating argumentation and sentiment analysis for mining opinions from Twitter , 2015, AI Commun..

[20]  Guillermo Ricardo Simari,et al.  Defeasible logic programming: an argumentative approach , 2003, Theory and Practice of Logic Programming.

[21]  C. Cayrol,et al.  On the Acceptability of Arguments in Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks , 2005, ECSQARU.

[22]  Guillermo Ricardo Simari,et al.  Backing and Undercutting in Abstract Argumentation Frameworks , 2012, FoIKS.

[23]  Claudette Cayrol,et al.  An Axiomatic Approach to Support in Argumentation , 2015, TAFA.

[24]  Anthony Hunter,et al.  Argumentation Using Temporal Knowledge , 2008, COMMA.

[25]  Lluis Godo,et al.  t-DeLP: an argumentation-based Temporal Defeasible Logic Programming framework , 2013, Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence.

[26]  Guillermo Ricardo Simari,et al.  Acceptability in Timed Frameworks with Intermittent Arguments , 2011, EANN/AIAI.

[27]  Ana Gabriela Maguitman,et al.  A Theoretical Framework for Trust-Based News Recommender Systems and its Implementation using Defeasible Argumentation , 2013, Int. J. Artif. Intell. Tools.

[28]  Weiru Liu Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty - 11th European Conference, ECSQARU 2011 , 2011 .

[29]  Lluis Godo,et al.  t-DeLP: A Temporal Extension of the Defeasible Logic Programming Argumentative Framework , 2011, SUM.

[30]  Jaap Hage,et al.  A theory of legal reasoning and a logic to match , 1996, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[31]  João Leite,et al.  Social Abstract Argumentation , 2011, IJCAI.

[32]  Iyad Rahwan,et al.  Guest Editorial: Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems , 2005, Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems.

[33]  Dov M. Gabbay,et al.  Temporal, numerical and meta-level dynamics in argumentation networks , 2012, Argument Comput..

[34]  D. Gabbay,et al.  Many-Dimensional Modal Logics: Theory and Applications , 2003 .

[35]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument , 1997 .

[36]  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..

[37]  Anthony Hunter,et al.  Elements of Argumentation , 2007, ECSQARU.

[38]  Guillermo Ricardo Simari,et al.  On Admissibility in Timed Abstract Argumentation Frameworks , 2010, ECAI.