On bipolarity in argumentation frameworks

In this article, 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 that have a diametrically opposed nature and that represent repellent forces (a positive entity and a negative entity). The notion exists in various domains (for example with the representation of preferences in artificial intelligence, or in cognitive psychology). On the other hand, argumentation process is a promising approach for reasoning, based on the construction and the comparison of arguments. It follows five steps: building the arguments, defining the interactions between these arguments, valuating the arguments, selecting the most acceptable arguments and, finally, drawing a conclusion. Using the nomenclature proposed by Dubois and Prade, this article shows on various applications, and with some formal definitions, that bipolarity appears in argumentation (in some cases if not always) and can be used in each step of this process under different forms. © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

[1]  Paul R. Cohen,et al.  Heuristic reasoning about uncertainty: an artificial intelligence approach , 1984 .

[2]  Craig Boutilier,et al.  Toward a Logic for Qualitative Decision Theory , 1994, KR.

[3]  Judea Pearl,et al.  Specification and Evaluation of Preferences Under Uncertainty , 1994, KR.

[4]  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..

[5]  John Fox,et al.  A LOGIC OF ARGUMENTATION FOR REASONING UNDER UNCERTAINTY , 1995, Comput. Intell..

[6]  Didier Dubois,et al.  Possibility Theory as a Basis for Qualitative Decision Theory , 1995, IJCAI.

[7]  Nikos I. Karacapilidis,et al.  The Zeno argumentation framework , 1997, ICAIL '97.

[8]  Simon Parsons,et al.  Normative Argumentation and Qualitative Probability , 1997, ECSQARU-FAPR.

[9]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Argument-Based Extended Logic Programming with Defeasible Priorities , 1997, J. Appl. Non Class. Logics.

[10]  Sarit Kraus,et al.  Reaching Agreements Through Argumentation: A Logical Model and Implementation , 1998, Artif. Intell..

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

[12]  Dirk Vermeir,et al.  Robust Semantics for Argumentation Frameworks , 1999, J. Log. Comput..

[13]  Simon Parsons,et al.  Arguments, Dialogue, and Negotiation , 2000, ECAI.

[14]  Simon Parsons,et al.  Modelling dialogues using argumentation , 2000, Proceedings Fourth International Conference on MultiAgent Systems.

[15]  John L. Pollock,et al.  Defeasible reasoning with variable degrees of justification , 2001, Artif. Intell..

[16]  Dimitris Papadias,et al.  Computer supported argumentation and collaborative decision making: the HERMES system , 2001, Inf. Syst..

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

[18]  Sarvapali D. Ramchurn,et al.  Persuasive negotiation for autonomous agents: A rhetorical approach , 2003, IJCAI 2003.

[19]  Sarvapali D. Ramchurn,et al.  Argumentation-based negotiation , 2003, The Knowledge Engineering Review.

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

[21]  Leila Amgoud,et al.  A Formal Framework for Handling Conflicting Desires , 2003, ECSQARU.

[22]  Frank Dignum,et al.  Towards interest-based negotiation , 2003, AAMAS '03.

[23]  Henri Prade,et al.  Generation and evaluation of different types of arguments in negotiation , 2004, NMR.

[24]  Henri Prade,et al.  Reaching Agreement Through Argumentation: A Possibilistic Approach , 2004, KR.

[25]  Claudette Cayrol,et al.  On bipolarity in argumentation frameworks , 2008, NMR.

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

[27]  Leon van der Torre,et al.  Utilitarian Desires , 2002, Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems.

[28]  Henri Prade,et al.  Using Arguments for Making Decisions: A Possibilistic Logic Approach , 2004, UAI.

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

[30]  Henri Prade,et al.  An Argumentation-Based Approach to Multiple Criteria Decision , 2005, ECSQARU.

[31]  Didier Dubois,et al.  A Bipolar Possibilistic Representation of Knowledge and Preferences and Its Applications , 2005, WILF.

[32]  Didier Dubois,et al.  On the Qualitative Comparison of Sets of Positive and Negative Affects , 2005, ECSQARU.