Recently, qualitative uncertainty in abstract argumentation has received much attention. The first works on this topic introduced uncertainty about the presence of attacks, then about the presence of arguments, and finally combined both kinds of uncertainty. This results in the Incomplete Argumentation Framework (IAFs). But another kind of uncertainty was introduced in the context of Control Argumentation Frameworks (CAFs): it consists in a conflict relation with uncertain orientation, i.e. we are sure that there is an attack between two arguments, but the actual direction of the attack is unknown. Here, we formally define Rich IAFs, that combine the three different kinds of uncertainty that were previously introduced in IAFs and CAFs. We show that this new model, although strictly more expressive than IAFs, does not suffer from a blow up of computational complexity. Also, the existing computational approach based on SAT can be easily adapted to the new framework.


    Access

    Download


    Export, share and cite



    Title :

    A Note on Rich Incomplete Argumentation Frameworks


    Contributors:

    Publication date :

    2020


    Remarks:

    Technical report, 12 pages, 6 figures


    Type of media :

    Preprint


    Type of material :

    Electronic Resource


    Language :

    English




    Hilfen für die Argumentation

    Königin-Luise-Str. 5, D-14195 Berlin | IuD Bahn | 1993


    Argumentation for coordinating shared activities

    Clement, Bradley J. / Barrett, Anthony C. / Schaffer, Steven R. | NTRS | 2004


    A Note on the Robustness of the Tobin Effect in Incomplete Markets

    Saito, M. / Takeda, Y. | British Library Online Contents | 2006


    Safety argumentation for automated driving systems

    Dr. Helmle, Michael / Sautter, P. / Hauler, F. et al. | Springer Verlag | 2016

    Free access

    Flight Incident Analysis Through Symbolic Argumentation

    de Niz, Dionisio / Andersson, Bjorn / Klein, Mark H. et al. | IEEE | 2024