A Reasoning Model Based on the Production of Acceptable Arguments

  • Leila Amgoud
  • Claudette Cayrol
Article

Abstract

Argumentation is a reasoning model based on the construction of arguments and counter-arguments (or defeaters) followed by the selection of the most acceptable of them. In this paper, we refine the argumentation framework proposed by Dung by taking into account preference relations between arguments in order to integrate two complementary points of view on the concept of acceptability: acceptability based on the existence of direct counter-arguments and acceptability based on the existence of defenders. An argument is thus acceptable if it is preferred to its direct defeaters or if it is defended against its defeaters. This also refines previous works by Prakken and Sartor, by associating with each argument a notion of strength, while these authors embed preferences in the definition of the defeat relation. We propose a revised proof theory in terms of AND/OR trees, verifying if a given argument is acceptable, which better reflects the dialectical form of argumentation.

argumentation preference relations 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    L. Amgoud, Contribution a l'integration des préferences dans le raisonnement argumentatif, Thèse de doctorat de l'Université Paul Sabatier, Toulouse (July, 1999).Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    L. Amgoud and C. Cayrol, Integrating preference orderings into argument-based reasoning, in: Proceedings of the 1st International Joint Conference on Qualitative and Quantitative Practical Reasoning, ECSQARU-FAPR'97 (1997) pp. 159-170.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    L. Amgoud and C. Cayrol, On the acceptability of arguments in preference-based argumentation framework, in: Proceedings of the 14th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (1998) pp. 1-7.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    L. Amgoud, C. Cayrol and D. LeBerre, Comparing arguments using preference orderings for argument-based reasoning, in: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence (1996) pp. 400-403.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    L. Amgoud, N. Maudet and S. Parsons, Modelling dialogues using argumentation, in: Proceedings of the International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems, ICMAS'2000 (Boston, MA, 2000) pp. 31-38.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    L. Amgoud and S. Parsons, A dialogue framework based on argumentation (2000). Submitted to J. Artif. Intell.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    L. Amgoud, S. Parsons and N. Maudet, Arguments, dialogue, and negotiation, in: Proceedings of the 14th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (2000) pp. 338-342.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    L. Amgoud, S. Parsons and L. Perrussel, An argumentation framework based on contextual preferences, in: Proceedings of the International Conference on Formal and Applied and Practical Reasoning (2000) pp. 59-67.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    C. Cayrol, V. Royer and C. Saurel, Management of preferences in Assumption-Based Reasoning, in: Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 682, eds. B. Bouchon-Meunier, L. Valverde and R.Y. Yager (1993) pp. 13-22.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    P.M. Dung, On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in non-monotonic reasoning and logic programming, in: Proceedings of the 13th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI'93 (1993) pp. 852-857.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    P.M. Dung, On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games, Artif. Intell. 77 (1995) 321-357.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    M. Elvang, J. Fox and P. Krause, Dialectic reasoning with inconsistent information, in: Proceedings of the 9th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (1993) pp. 114-121.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    M. Elvang and A. Hunter, Argumentative logics: reasoning with classically inconsistent information, Data Knowledge Engrg. 12 (1995) 125-145.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    J. Kohlas, R. Haenni and D. Berzati, Probabilistic argumentation systems and abduction, in: Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning, NMR'2000 (2000).Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    F. Lin and Y. Shoham, Argument systems-a uniform basis for non-monotonic reasoning, in: Proceedings of the first International Conference on Principles of Knowledge and Reasoning (1989) pp. 245-255.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    G. Pinkas and R.P. Loui, Reasoning from inconsistency: a taxonomy of principles for resolving con-flicts, in: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Principles of Knowledge representation and Reasoning (1992) pp. 709-719.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    J.L. Pollock, How to reason defeasibly, J. Artif. Intell. 57 (1992) 1-42.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    H. Prakken and G. Sartor, On the relation between legal language and legal argument: assumptions, applicability and dynamic priorities, in: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (1995) pp. 1-10.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    H. Prakken and G. Sartor, A dialectical model of assessing conflicting arguments in legal reasoning, J. Artif. Intell. Law (1996) 331-368.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    H. Prakken and G. Sartor, Argument-based extended logic programming with defeasible priorties, J. Appl. Non-Classical Logics 7 (1997) 25-75.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    G.R. Simari and R.P. Loui, A mathematical treatment of defeasible reasoning and its implementation, J. Artif. Intell. 53 (1992) 125-157.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    G. Vreeswijk, The feasibility of defeat in defeasible reasoning, in: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, KR'91 (1991) pp. 526-534.Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    G. Vreeswijk, Abstract argumentation systems, J. Artif. Intell. 90 (1997) 225-279.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Leila Amgoud
    • 1
  • Claudette Cayrol
    • 1
  1. 1.LERIA, Université d'AngersAngers CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations