Affiliation:
1. LIPADE, Université de Paris, Paris, France. E-mail: jean-guy.mailly@u-paris.fr
Abstract
Abstract argumentation, as originally defined by Dung, is a model that allows the description of certain information about arguments and relationships between them: in an abstract argumentation framework (AF), the agent knows for sure whether a given argument or attack exists. It means that the absence of an attack between two arguments can be interpreted as “we know that the first argument does not attack the second one”. But the question of uncertainty in abstract argumentation has received much attention in the last years. In this paper, we survey approaches that allow to express information like “There may (or may not) be an attack between these arguments”. We describe the main models that incorporate qualitative uncertainty (or ignorance) in abstract argumentation, as well as some applications of these models. We also highlight some open questions that deserve some attention in the future.
Subject
Artificial Intelligence,Computational Mathematics,Computer Science Applications,Linguistics and Language
Reference80 articles.
1. Ranking-Based Semantics for Argumentation Frameworks
2. A reasoning model based on the production of acceptable arguments;Amgoud;Ann. Math. Artif. Intell.,2002
3. On bipolarity in argumentation frameworks;Amgoud;Int. J. Intell. Syst.,2008
4. L. Amgoud, Y. Dimopoulos and P. Moraitis, A unified and general framework for argumentation-based negotiation, in: 6th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2007), IFAAMAS, 2007, p. 158.
5. L. Amgoud and D. Doder, Gradual semantics accounting for varied-strength attacks, in: Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems, AAMAS ’19, Montreal, QC, Canada, May 13–17, 2019, 2019, pp. 1270–1278.
Cited by
8 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献