Abstract
Argumentation in AI provides an inconsistency-tolerant formalism capable of establishing those pieces of knowledge that can be accepted despite having information in contradiction. Computation of accepted arguments tends to be expensive; in order to alleviate this issue, we propose a heuristics-based pruning technique over argumentation trees. Empirical testing shows that in most cases our approach answers queries much faster than the usual techniques, which prune with no guide. The heuristics is based on a measure of strength assigned to arguments. We show how to compute these strength values by providing the corresponding algorithms, which use dynamic programming techniques to reutilise previously computed trees. In addition to this, we introduce a set of postulates characterising the desired behaviour of any strength formula. We check the given measure of strength against these postulates to show that its behaviour is rational. Although the approach presented here is based on an abstract argumentation framework, the techniques are tightly connected to the dialectical process rather than to the framework itself. Thus, results can be extrapolated to other dialectical-tree-based argumentation formalisms with no additional difficulty.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Amgoud, L., Devred, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.C.: A constrained argumentation system for practical reasoning. In: AAMAS, pp. 429–436 (2008)
Amgoud, L., Dimopoulos, Y., Moraitis, P.: A general framework for argumentation-based negotiation. In: ArgMAS, pp. 1–17 (2007)
Baroni, P., Dunne, P.E., Giacomin, M.: Computational properties of resolution-based grounded semantics. In: IJCAI, pp. 683–689 (2009)
Baroni, P., Giacomin, M.: On principle-based evaluation of extension-based argumentation semantics. Artif. Intell. 171, 675–700 (2007)
Baumann, R., Brewka, G.: Expanding argumentation frameworks: Enforcing and monotonicity results. In: COMMA, pp. 75–86 (2010)
Bench-Capon, T.J.M., Dunne, P.E.: Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Artif. Intell. 171, 619–641 (2007)
Besnard, P., Hunter, A.: A logic-based theory of deductive arguments. Artif. Intell. 128(1–2), 203–235 (2001)
Besnard, P., Hunter, A.: Knowledgebase compilation for efficient logical argumentation. In: KR, pp. 123–133 (2006)
Boella, G., Kaci, S., van der Torre, L.: Dynamics in argumentation with single extensions: abstraction principles and the grounded extension. In: ECSQARU, pp. 107–118 (2009)
Capobianco, M., Chesñevar, C.I., Simari, G.R.: Argumentation and the dynamics of warranted beliefs in changing environments. JAAMAS 11, 127–151 (2005)
Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.C.: Graduality in argumentation. J. Artif. Intell. Res. (JAIR) 23, 245–297 (2005)
Cayrol, C., de Saint-Cyr, F.D., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.C.: Change in abstract argumentation frameworks: adding an argument. J. Artif. Intell. Res. (JAIR) 38, 49–84 (2010)
Chesñevar, C.I., Simari, G.R., Godo, L.: Computing dialectical trees efficiently in possibilistic defeasible logic programming. In: LPNMR, pp. 158–171 (2005)
Chesñevar, C., Simari, G.: A lattice-based approach to computing warranted belief in skeptical argumentation frameworks. In: IJCAI, pp. 280–285 (2007)
Chesñevar, C.I., Simari, G.R., García, A.J.: Pruning search space in defeasible argumentation. In: ATAI, pp. 46–55 (2000)
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), 321–358 (1995)
García, A.J., Simari, G.R.: Defeasible logic programming: an argumentative approach. TPLP 4(1–2), 95–138 (2004)
Liao, B., Jin, L., Koons, R.C.: Dynamics of argumentation systems: a division-based method. Artif. Intell. 175(11), 1790–1814 (2011)
Matt, P.A., Toni, F.: A game-theoretic measure of argument strength for abstract argumentation. In: JELIA, pp. 285–297 (2008)
Prakken, H., Vreeswijk, G.: Logics for defeasible argumentation. In: Gabbay, D., Guenthner, F. (eds.) Handbook of Philosophical Logic, 2nd edn, vol. 4, pp. 219–318. Dordrecht etc. (2002)
Rahwan, I.: Mass argumentation and the semantic web. J. Web. Sem. 6(1), 29–37 (2008)
Rahwan, I., Zablith, F., Reed, C.: Towards large scale argumentation support on the semantic web. In: AAAI, pp. 1446–1451 (2007)
Reed, C., Wells, S., Devereux, J., Rowe, G.: Aif+: dialogue in the argument interchange format. In: COMMA, pp. 311–323 (2008)
Rotstein, N., Moguillansky, M., García, A., Simari, G.: A dynamic argumentation framework. In: COMMA, pp. 427–438 (2010)
Rotstein, N.D., Gottifredi, S., García, A.J., Simari, G.R.: A heuristics-based pruning technique for argumentation trees. In: SUM, pp. 177–190 (2011)
Rotstein, N.D., Moguillansky, M.O., Simari, G.R.: Dialectical abstract argumentation: a characterization of the marking criterion. In: IJCAI, pp. 898–903 (2009)
Wooldridge, M.J.: An Introduction to MultiAgent Systems, 2nd edn. John Wiley & Sons (2009)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This article is an extension of [25].
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Gottifredi, S., Rotstein, N.D., García, A.J. et al. Using argument strength for building dialectical bonsai. Ann Math Artif Intell 69, 103–129 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10472-013-9338-x
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10472-013-9338-x
Keywords
- Non-monotonic reasoning
- Computational argumentation
- Dialectical proof procedures
- Heuristics-based tree pruning