微信服务号

微信订阅号

2025年4月5日 20:42 星期六
首页 > 过刊浏览>2012年第23卷第6期 >1444-1457. DOI:10.3724/SP.J.1001.2012.04067
PDF HTML阅读 XML下载 导出引用 引用提醒
一种扩展双极辩论模型
作者:
基金项目:

国家自然科学基金(91024006); 国家教育部博士点基金(20104307120020)


Extended Bipolar Argumentation Model
Author:
  • 摘要
    • | |
  • 访问统计
    • |
  • 参考文献 [24]
    • |
  • 相似文献 [20]
    • | | |
  • 文章评论
    摘要:

    提出一种扩展双极辩论模型EBAF(extended bipolar argumentation framework).该模型不仅包括攻击和支援两种独立的语义关系,还允许攻击和支援的递归交互,即对攻击和支援关系进行攻击或支援,且递归次数不受限制.围绕该模型的可接受集合的确定问题,首先将该模型中的攻击和支援关系进行分离,得到攻击辩论框架和支援辩论框架;然后将攻击关系和支援关系作为实体,把递归攻击和递归支援转化为关系视角下的攻击和支援.在此基础上,定义了EBAF 的基本语义概念和可接受集合,并给出了可接受集合的确定算法.最后将EBAF 与其他相关辩论模型进行了比较.

    Abstract:

    This paper proposes an extended bipolar argumentation model, named extended bipolar argumentation framework (EBAF). In this model, attack and support relations are considered as two independent semantic relations and there exist recursive interactions among attacks and supports. In other words, there are attacks or supports for the attack and support relations without limits. This paper focuses on the determination of acceptable set of EBAF. First the attack and support relations are separated, and the argumentation framework with only attack and support relations are obtained as results. Second the attacks and supports are considered as entities that convert the recursive attacks and supports into attacks and supports under relation perspective. On this basis, basic semantic concepts and acceptability of EBAF are defined and the determination algorithm of acceptable set of EBAF is provided. Finally, this paper provides a comparison with other relative argumentation models.

    参考文献
    [1] Xiong CQ, Sun XB, Ouyang Y. A survey of research on logic model of argumentation. Pattern Recognition and ArtificialIntelligence, 2010,23(3):362-368 (in Chinese with English abstract).
    [2] Reed C, Grasso F. Recent advances in computational models of natural argument. Int'l Journal of Intelligent Systems, 2007,22(1):1-15. [doi: 10.1002/int.20187]
    [3] Xiong CQ, Li DH. Model of argumentation. Journal of Software, 2009,20(8):2181-2190 (in Chinese with English abstract).http://www.jos.org.cn/1000-9825/3465.htm [doi: 10.3724/SP.J. 1001.2009.03465]
    [4] Tan JF, Zhang PZ, Huang LN. A group argumentation information-structruing model in hall for workshop of metasyntheticengineering. Systems Engineering-Theory and Practice, 2005,25(1):86-92, 99 (in Chinese with English abstract).
    [5] Tang XJ, Liu YJ. From group support system to creativity support system. Systems Engineering-Theory and Practice, 2006,26(5):63-71 (in Chinese with English abstract).
    [6] Jiang YZ, Zhang PZ, Zhang XX. Research on intelligence visualization in group argument support system. Journal of ManagementSciences in China, 2009,12(3):1-11 (in Chinese with English abstract).
    [7] Xiong CQ, Pan Y, Li DH. A discussion information-structuring model based on the toulmin formalism. In: Proc. of the 1st Int'lConf. on Forensic Applications and Techniques in Telecommunications, Information, and Multimedia and Workshop (e-Forensics2008). Adelaide: ICST, 2008. [doi: 10.1109/WKDD.2008.138]
    [8] Dung PM. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-persongames. Artificial Intelligence, 1995,77(2):321-357. [doi: 10.1016/0004-3702(94)00041-X]
    [9] Amgoud L, Cayrol C. A reasoning model based on the production of acceptable arguments. Annals of Mathematics and ArtificialIntelligence, 2002,34(1-3):197-215. [doi: 10.1023/A:1014490210693]
    [10] Bench-Capon TJM. Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic andComputation, 2003,13(3):429-448. [doi: 10.1093/logcom/13.3.429]
    [11] Cayrol C, Lagasquie-Schiex MC. On the acceptability of arguments in bipolar argumentation frameworks. In: Godo L, ed. Proc. ofthe Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty (ECSQARU 2005). LNAI, Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, 2005. 378-389. [doi: 10.1007/11518655_33]
    [12] Amgoud L, Cayrol C, Lagasquie-Schiex MC, Livet P. On bipolarity in argumentation frameworks. Int'l Journal of IntelligentSystems, 2008,23(10):1062-1093. [[doi: 10.1002/ int.20307]
    [13] Modgil S. An abstract theory of argumentation that accommodates defeasible reasoning about preferences. In: Mellouli K, ed. Proc.of the 9th European Conf. on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty (ECSQARU 2007). LNAI,Hammamet: Springer-Verlag, 2007. 648-659. [doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-75256-1_57]
    [14] Modgil S. Reasoning about preferences in argumentation frameworks. Artificial Intelligence, 2009,173(9-10):901-934. [doi:10.1016/j.artint.2009.02.001]
    [15] Dunne PE, Hunter A, McBurney P, Parsons S, Wooldridge M. Weighted argument systems: Basic definitions, algorithms, andcomplexity results. Artificial Intelligence, 2011,175(2):457-486. [doi: 10.1016/j.artint.2010.09.005]
    [16] Dunne PE, Hunter A, McBurney P, Wooldridge M. Inconsistency tolerance in weighted argument systems. In: Proc. of the 8th Int'lConf. on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2009), Vol.2. Richard: Int'l Foundation for Autonomous Agentsand Multiagent Systems, 2009. 851-858.
    [17] Baroni P, Cerutti F, Giacomin M, Guida G. AFRA: Argumentation framework with recursive attacks. Int'l Journal of ApproximateReasoning, 2011,52(1):19-37. [doi: 10.1016/j.ijar.2010.05.004]
    [18] Atkinson K, Bench-Capon T, Mcburney P. PARMENIDES: Facilitating deliberation in democracies. Artificial Intelligence andLaw, 2006,14(4):261-275. [doi: 10.1007/s10506-006-9001-5]
    [19] Toulmin SE. The Uses of Argument. Updated ed. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
    [20] Conklin J, Selvin A, Shum SB, Sierhuis M. Facilitated hypertext for collective sensemaking: 15 years on from gIBIS. In: WeigandH, Goldkuhl G, Moor A eds. Proc. of the 8th Int'l Working Conf. on the Language-Action Perspective on CommunicationModelling (LAP 2003). Tilburg, 2003. 1-19. [doi: 10.1145/504216.504246]
    [21] Karacapilidis N, Papadias D. Computer supported argumentation and collaborative decision making: The HERMES system.Information Systems, 2001,26(4):259-277. [doi: 10.1016/S0306-4379(01)00020-5]
    [22] Cayrol C, Lagasquie-Schiex MC. Gradual valuation for bipolar argumentation frameworks In: Godo L, ed. Proc. of the Symbolicand Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty (ECSQARU 2005). LNAI, Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, 2005.366-377. [doi: 10.1007/11518655_32]
    [23] Atkinson K. Value-Based argumentation for democratic decision support. In: Proc. of the 2006 Conf. on Computational Models ofArgument. Amsterdam: IOS Press, 2006. 47-58.
    [24] Davey BA, Preistley HA. Introduction to Lattices and Order. 2nd ed., Canbrudge University Press, 2002.
    引证文献
    网友评论
    网友评论
    分享到微博
    发 布
引用本文

陈俊良,王长春,陈超.一种扩展双极辩论模型.软件学报,2012,23(6):1444-1457

复制
分享
文章指标
  • 点击次数:4670
  • 下载次数: 5304
  • HTML阅读次数: 0
  • 引用次数: 0
历史
  • 收稿日期:2011-04-19
  • 最后修改日期:2011-06-20
  • 在线发布日期: 2012-06-05
文章二维码
友情链接:中国科学院软件研究所中国计算机学会中国科学院国家自然科学基金委员会CCF数字图书馆Int'l J of Softw Info计算机系统应用
您是第19791742位访问者
版权所有：中国科学院软件研究所 京ICP备05046678号-3
地址：北京市海淀区中关村南四街4号,邮政编码：100190
电话：010-62562563 传真：010-62562533 Email：jos@iscas.ac.cn
技术支持：北京勤云科技发展有限公司

京公网安备 11040202500063号