Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Multi-valued Argumentation Frameworks

  • Conference paper
Rules on the Web. From Theory to Applications (RuleML 2014)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNPSE,volume 8620))

Abstract

In this paper we explore how the seminal Dung’s abstract argumentation framework can be extended to handle arguments containing gradual concepts. We allow arguments to have a degree of truth associated with them and we investigate the degree of truth to which each argument can be considered accepted, rejected and undecided by an abstract argumentation semantics. We propose a truth-compositional recursive computation, and we discuss examples using the major multi-valued logics such as Godel’s, Zadeh’s and Łukasiewicz’s logic. The findings are a contribution in the field of non-monotonic approximate reasoning and they also represent a well-grounded proposal towards the introduction of gradualism in argumentation systems.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, C.D.: Acceptability semantics accounting for strength of attacks in argumentation. In: 19th ECAI, Lisbon, Portugal, pp. 995–996 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Dung, P.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence 77, 321–357 (1995)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  3. Dung, P., Thang, P.: Towards (Probabilistic) Argumentation for Jury-based Dispute Resolution. In: COMMA 2010, pp. 171–182. IOS Press (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Li, H., Oren, N., Norman, T.J.: Probabilistic Argumentation Frameworks. In: Modgil, S., Oren, N., Toni, F. (eds.) TAFA 2011. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 7132, pp. 1–16. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  5. Hunter, A.: A probabilistic approach to modelling uncertain logical arguments. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Caminada, M.W.A., Gabbay, D.M.: A logical account of formal argumentation. Studia Logica 93(2-3), 109–145 (2009)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  7. Pollock, J.: Defeasible reasoning with variable degrees of justification. Artificial Intelligence 133, 233–282 (2001)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  8. Gabbay, M.: Equational approach to argumentation networks. Argument & Computation 3(2-3), 87–142 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Dunne, P.E., Hunter, A., McBurney, P., Parsons, S.: Inconsistency tolerance in weighted argument systems. In: Proc. of AAMAS 2009 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Martinez, D.C., Garcia, A.J.: An abstract argumentation framework with varied-strength attacks. In: Proc. of KR 2008, pp. 135–143 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Vreeswijk, G.: Abstract argumentation systems. Artificial Intelligence 90, 225–279 (1997)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  12. Thimm, M.: A Probabilistic Semantics for abstract Argumentation. In: ECAI (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Janssen, J.: Fuzzy argumentation frameworks. Information. In: Processing and Management of Uncertainty in Knowledge-based Systems (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Gratie, C., Florea, A.M.: Fuzzy labelling for argumentation frameworks. In: McBurney, P., Parsons, S., Rahwan, I. (eds.) ArgMAS 2011. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 7543, pp. 1–8. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  15. Baroni, P., Romano, M., Toni, F., Aurisicchio, M., Bertanza, G.: Argumentation-Based Approach for Automatic Evaluation of Design Debates. In: Leite, J., Son, T.C., Torroni, P., van der Torre, L., Woltran, S. (eds.) CLIMA XIV 2013. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 8143, pp. 340–356. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  16. Lukasiewicz, T., Straccia, U.: Managing uncertainty and vagueness in description logics for the semantic web. In: Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web, vol. 6(4), pp. 291–308 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Boella, G., Souhila, K., Van Der Torre, L.: Dynamics in argumentation with single extensions: Attack refinement and the grounded extension. In: Proceedings of The 8th AAMAS Conference (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Dondio, P.: Computing the Grounded Semantics in all the Subgraphs of an Argumentation Framework: An Empirical Evaluation. In: Leite, J., Son, T.C., Torroni, P., van der Torre, L., Woltran, S. (eds.) CLIMA XIV 2013. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 8143, pp. 119–137. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  19. Prade, H., Dubois, D.: What are fuzzy rules and how to use them. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 84, 169–185 (1996)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  20. Dubois, Prade, Smeths. Gradual properties vs. uncertainty: Fuzzy logic vs. possibilistic logic, Technical report (2000), retrieved from http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~psmets/Gradual_vs_Uncert.pdf

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Computing, Dublin Institute of Technology, Kevin Street 2, Dublin 8, Ireland

    Pierpaolo Dondio

Authors
  1. Pierpaolo Dondio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Information Studies, University College London, Gower Street, WC1E 6BT, London, UK

    Antonis Bikakis

  2. Department of Computer Science, Stony Brook University, 11794, Stony Brook, NY, USA

    Paul Fodor

  3. SINTEF, University of Oslo, Forskningsveien 1, 0314, Oslo, Norway

    Dumitru Roman

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this paper

Cite this paper

Dondio, P. (2014). Multi-valued Argumentation Frameworks. In: Bikakis, A., Fodor, P., Roman, D. (eds) Rules on the Web. From Theory to Applications. RuleML 2014. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 8620. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09870-8_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09870-8_10

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-09869-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-09870-8

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation