Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Definition of Sceptical Semantics in the Constellations Approach

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning (LPNMR 2022)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 13416))

  • 581 Accesses

Abstract

We propose a different way to compute sceptical semantics in the constellations approach: we define the grounded, ideal, and eager extension of a Probabilistic Argumentation Framework by merging the subsets with the maximal probability of complete, preferred, semi-stable extensions respectively. Differently from the original work (i.e., [19]), the extension we propose is unique, as the principle of scepticism usually demands. This definition maintains some well-known properties, as set-inclusion among the three semantics. Moreover, we advance a quantitative relaxation of these semantics with the purpose to mitigate scepticism in case the result corresponds to empty-set, which is not very informative.

The authors are members of the INdAM Research group GNCS and of Consorzio CINI. This work has been partially supported by: project RACRA - funded by “Ricerca di Base 2018–2019” (Univeristy of Perugia), project DopUP - “REGIONE UMBRIA PSR” 2014–2020.

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 59.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 79.99
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

References

  1. Amgoud, L., Ben-Naim, J., Doder, D., Vesic, S.: Acceptability semantics for weighted argumentation frameworks. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 56–62. ijcai.org (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Baroni, P., Caminada, M., Giacomin, M.: An introduction to argumentation semantics. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 26(4), 365–410 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Baroni, P., Giacomin, M., Vicig, P.: On rationality conditions for epistemic probabilities in abstract argumentation. In: Computational Models of Argument - Proceedings of COMMA, FAIA, vol. 266, pp. 121–132. IOS Press (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Baumeister, D., Neugebauer, D., Rothe, J.: Collective acceptability in abstract argumentation. FLAP 8(6), 1503–1542 (2021)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Bistarelli, S., Rossi, F., Santini, F.: ConArg: a tool for classical and weighted argumentation. In: Computational Models of Argument - Proceedings of COMMA, FAIA, vol. 287, pp. 463–464. IOS Press (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bistarelli, S., Rossi, F., Santini, F.: A ConArg-based library for abstract argumentation. In: 29th IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence, ICTAI, pp. 374–381. IEEE Computer Society (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bistarelli, S., Rossi, F., Santini, F.: ConArgLib: an argumentation library with support to search strategies and parallel search. J. Exp. Theor. Artif. Intell. 33(6), 891–918 (2021)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bistarelli, S., Santini, F.: Weighted argumentation. FLAP 8(6), 1589–1622 (2021)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Caminada, M.: On the issue of reinstatement in argumentation. In: Fisher, M., van der Hoek, W., Konev, B., Lisitsa, A. (eds.) JELIA 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4160, pp. 111–123. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/11853886_11

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. Caminada, M.: Comparing two unique extension semantics for formal argumentation: ideal and eager. In: Belgian-Dutch Conference on Artificial Intelligence (BNAIC), pp. 81–87 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Coste-Marquis, S., Devred, C., Konieczny, S., Lagasquie-Schiex, M., Marquis, P.: On the merging of Dung’s argumentation systems. Artif. Intell. 171(10–15), 730–753 (2007)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Doder, D., Woltran, S.: Probabilistic argumentation frameworks – a logical approach. In: Straccia, U., Calì, A. (eds.) SUM 2014. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 8720, pp. 134–147. Springer, Cham (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11508-5_12

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Dung, P.M., Mancarella, P., Toni, F.: Computing ideal sceptical argumentation. Artif. Intell. 171(10–15), 642–674 (2007)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Dung, P.M., Thang, P.M.: Towards (probabilistic) argumentation for jury-based dispute resolution. In: Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA, FAIA, vol. 216, pp. 171–182. IOS Press (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Fazzinga, B., Flesca, S., Parisi, F.: On the complexity of probabilistic abstract argumentation frameworks. ACM Trans. Comput. Log. 16(3), 22:1–22:39 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Hunter, A.: A probabilistic approach to modelling uncertain logical arguments. Int. J. Approx. Reason. 54(1), 47–81 (2013)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Hunter, A., Thimm, M.: Probabilistic reasoning with abstract argumentation frameworks. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 59, 565–611 (2017)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. 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). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-29184-5_1

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  20. Riveret, R., Governatori, G.: On learning attacks in probabilistic abstract argumentation. In: Proceedings of the 2016 International Conference on Autonomous Agents & Multiagent Systems, pp. 653–661. ACM (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Santini, F., Jøsang, A., Pini, M.S.: Are my arguments trustworthy? Abstract argumentation with subjective logic. In: 21st International Conference on Information Fusion, FUSION, pp. 1982–1989. IEEE (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Thimm, M.: A probabilistic semantics for abstract argumentation. In: ECAI - 20th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, FAIA, vol. 242, pp. 750–755. IOS Press (2012)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dipartimento di Matematica e Informatica, Università degli Studi di Perugia, Perugia, Italy

    Stefano Bistarelli & Francesco Santini

Authors
  1. Stefano Bistarelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Francesco Santini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Francesco Santini .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

    Georg Gottlob

  2. Miami University, Oxford, OH, USA

    Daniela Inclezan

  3. University of Genova, Genoa, Italy

    Marco Maratea

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Bistarelli, S., Santini, F. (2022). A Definition of Sceptical Semantics in the Constellations Approach. In: Gottlob, G., Inclezan, D., Maratea, M. (eds) Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning. LPNMR 2022. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 13416. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15707-3_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15707-3_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-15706-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-15707-3

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation