Conditional labelling for abstract argumentation

Guido Boella, Dov M. Gabbay, Alan Perotti, Leendert Van Der Torre, Serena Villata

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contributionpeer-review

10 Scopus citations


Agents engage in dialogues having as goals to make some arguments acceptable or unacceptable. To do so they may put forward arguments, adding them to the argumentation framework. Argumentation semantics can relate a change in the framework to the resulting extensions but it is not clear, given an argumentation framework and a desired acceptance state for a given set of arguments, which further arguments should be added in order to achieve those justification statuses. Our methodology, called conditional labelling, is based on argument labelling and assigns to each argument three propositional formulae. These formulae describe which arguments should be attacked by the agent in order to get a particular argument in, out, or undecided, respectively. Given a conditional labelling, the agents have a full knowledge about the consequences of the attacks they may raise on the acceptability of each argument without having to recompute the overall labelling of the framework for each possible set of attack they may raise.

Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationTheory and Applications of Formal Argumentation - First International Workshop, TAFA 2011, Revised Selected Papers
Number of pages17
StatePublished - 2012
Externally publishedYes
Event1st International Workshop on Theory and Applications of Formal Argumentation, TAFA 2011 - Barcelona, Spain
Duration: 16 Jul 201117 Jul 2011

Publication series

NameLecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics)
Volume7132 LNAI
ISSN (Print)0302-9743
ISSN (Electronic)1611-3349


Conference1st International Workshop on Theory and Applications of Formal Argumentation, TAFA 2011


Dive into the research topics of 'Conditional labelling for abstract argumentation'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this