Abstract
Preferences in abstract argumentation frameworks allow to represent the comparative strength of arguments, or preferences between values that arguments promote. In this paper, we reconsider the approach by Amgoud and Vesic, which computes the extensions of a preference-based argumentation framework by aggregating preferences and attacks into a new attack relation in a way that it favors preferred arguments in conflicts, and then simply applying Dung’s semantics to the resulting graph. We argue that this approach is too rigid in some situations, as it discards other sensible (even if less preferred) alternatives. We propose a more cautious approach to preference-based argumentation, which favors preferred arguments in attacks, but also does not discard feasible alternatives. Our semantics returns a set of extensions and a preference relation between them. It generalizes the approach by Amgoud and Vesic, in the sense that the extensions identified by their semantics will be more preferred than other extensions.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Amgoud, L.: Argumentation for decision making. In: Simari, G., Rahwan, I. (eds.) Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 301–320. Springer, Boston (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-98197-0_15
Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C.: A reasoning model based on the production of acceptable arguments. Anna. Math. Artif. Intell. 34, 197–215 (2002)
Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C.: Inferring from inconsistency in preference-based argumentation frameworks. J. Autom. Reason. 29(2), 125–169 (2002)
Amgoud, L., Vesic, S.: A new approach for preference-based argumentation frameworks. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 63(2), 149–183 (2011)
Amgoud, L., Vesic, S.: On the role of preferences in argumentation frameworks. In: 2010 22nd IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence. vol. 1, pp. 219–222 (2010)
Amgoud, L.B., Vesic, S.: Repairing preference-based argumentation frameworks. In: Twenty-First International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Citeseer (2009)
Atkinson, K., et al.: Towards artificial argumentation. AI Mag. 38(3), 25–36 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1609/aimag.v38i3.2704
Bench-Capon, T.J.: Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. J. Logic Comput. 13(3), 429–448 (2003)
Bench-Capon, T.J., Dunne, P.E.: Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Artif. Intell. 171(10–15), 619–641 (2007)
Bernreiter, M., Dvorák, W., Woltran, S.: Abstract argumentation with conditional preferences. In: Toni, F., et al Computational Models of Argument - Proceedings of COMMA 2022, Cardiff, Wales, UK, 14–16 September 2022. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications. IOS Press, vol. 353. pp. 92–103 (2022). https://doi.org/10.3233/FAIA220144
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)
Grooters, D., Prakken, H.: Combining paraconsistent logic with argumentation. In: COMMA, pp. 301–312 (2014)
Kaci, S., van der Torre, L., Villata, S.: Preference in abstract argumentation. In: 7th International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA). vol. 305, pp. 405–412. IOS Press (2018)
Lin, F., Shoham, Y.: Argument systems: a uniform basis for nonmonotonic reasoning. In: KR, vol. 89, pp. 245–255 (1989)
Modgil, S.: Reasoning about preferences in argumentation frameworks. Artif. Intell. 173(9–10), 901–934 (2009)
Rahwan, I., Simari, G.R.: Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, vol. 47. Springer, New York (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-98197-0
Simari, G.R., Loui, R.P.: A mathematical treatment of defeasible reasoning and its implementation. Artif. Intell. 53(2–3), 125–157 (1992)
Zhong, Q., et al.: An explainable multi-attribute decision model based on argumentation. Expert Syst. Appl. 117, 42–61 (2019)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Gebhardt, S., Doder, D. (2024). Determining Preferences over Extensions: A Cautious Approach to Preference-Based Argumentation Frameworks. In: Bouraoui, Z., Vesic, S. (eds) Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty. ECSQARU 2023. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 14294. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-45608-4_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-45608-4_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-45607-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-45608-4
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)