Advertisement

Assumption-Based Argumentation Equipped with Preferences and Constraints

  • Toshiko WakakiEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10564)

Abstract

\(\check{C}\)yras and Toni claimed that assumption-based argumentation equipped with preferences (p_ABA) cannot solve two examples presented by them since the given preferences don’t work in their p_ABAs whose underlying ABAs have a unique extension, and hence they proposed \(\mathrm {ABA}^+\). However in p_ABAs encoded by them, we found that they mistook hypotheses contained in their example for assumptions, while \(\check{C}\)yras ignored some constrains contained in another example. Hence against their claim, first this paper shows that p_ABAs in which we expressed the respective knowledge correctly give us solutions of them without any difficulties. Second we present the technique to represent hypotheses in ABA as well as a method to incorporate some kind of constraints in p_ABA. Finally we show a famous non-monotonic reasoning example with preferences that \(\mathrm {ABA}^{+}\) leads to incorrect results.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by KAKENHI (Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research(S)17H06103).

References

  1. 1.
    Bondarenko, A., Dung, P.M., Kowalski, R.A., Toni, F.: An abstract, argumentation-theoretic approach to default reasoning. Artif. Intell. 93, 63–101 (1997)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Caminada, M., S\(\acute{a}\), S., Alc\(\hat{a}\)ntara, J., Dvo\(\check{r}\acute{a}\)k, W.: On the difference between assumption-based argumentation and abstract argumentation. In: BNAIC 2013, pp. 25–32 (2013). IFCoLog J. Logic Appl. 2(1), 15–34 (2015)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Coste-Marquis, S., Devred, C., Marquis, P.: Constrained argumentation frameworks. In: Proceedings of KR 2006, pp. 112–122 (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    \(\check{C}\)yras, K.: Argumentation-based reasoning with preferences. In: Proceedings of PAAMS 2016, pp. 199–210 (2016)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    \(\check{C}\)yras, K., Toni, F.: \({\rm ABA}^+\): assumption-based argumentation with preferences. In: Proceedings of KR 2016, pp. 553–556 (2016)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Delgrande, J.P., Schaub, T., Tompits, H., Wang, K.: A classification and survey of preference handling approaches in nonmonotonic reasoning. J. Comput. Intell. 20(2), 308–334 (2004). WileyMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif. Intell. 77, 321–357 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dung, P.M., Mancarella, P., Toni, F.: Computing ideal sceptical argumentation. Artif. Intell. 171(10–15), 642–674 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dung, P.M., Kowalski, R.A., Toni, F.: Assumption-based argumentation. In: Simari G., Rahwan I. (eds.) Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 199–218, Springer, Boston (2009). doi: 10.1007/978-0-387-98197-0_10
  10. 10.
    Dung, P.M., Thang, P.M.: Closure and consistency rationalities in logic-based argumentation. In: Balduccini, M., Son, T.C. (eds.) Logic Programming, Knowledge Representation, and Nonmonotonic Reasoning. LNCS, vol. 6565, pp. 33–43. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-20832-4_3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dung, P.M.: An axiomatic analysis of structured argumentation with priorities. Artif. Intell. 231, 107–150 (2016)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dung, P.M.: A Canonical semantics for structured argumentation with priorities. In: Proceedings of COMMA-2016, pp. 263–274 (2016)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fan, X., Toni, F.: A general framework for sound assumption-based argumentation dialogues. Artif. Intell. 216, 20–54 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kakas, A.C., Kowalski, R.A., Toni, F.: Abductive logic programming. J. Logic Comput. 2(6), 719–770 (1992)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lifschitz, V.: Computing circumscription. In: Proceedings of IJCAI 1985, pp. 121–127 (1985)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    McCarthy, J.: Applications of circumscription to formalizing commonsense knowledge. Artif. Intell. 28, 89–116 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Modgil, S.J., Prakken, H.: The \({ASPIC}\)+ framework for structured argumentation: a tutorial. Argum. Comput. 5, 31–62 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Prakken, H.: An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. Argum. Comput. 1, 93–124 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sakama, C., Inoue, K.: Prioritized logic programming and its application to commonsense reasoning. Artif. Intell. 123, 185–222 (2000)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sakama, C., Inoue, K.: An abductive framework for computing knowledge base updates. TPLP 3(6), 671–713 (2003)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wakaki, T., Nitta, K., Sawamura, H.: Computing abductive argumentation in answer set programming. In: McBurney, P., Rahwan, I., Parsons, S., Maudet, N. (eds.) ArgMAS 2009. LNCS, vol. 6057, pp. 195–215. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-12805-9_12 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wakaki, T.: Assumption-based argumentation equipped with preferences. In: Dam, H.K., Pitt, J., Xu, Y., Governatori, G., Ito, T. (eds.) PRIMA 2014. LNCS, vol. 8861, pp. 116–132. Springer, Cham (2014). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-13191-7_10 Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wakaki, T.: Assumption-based argumentation equipped with preferences and its application to decision-making, practical reasoning, and epistemic reasoning. J. Comput. Intell,. doi: 10.1111/coin.12111, Accepted 17 October 2016. Published early view article (online version) on 20 March 2017. Wiley (2017)

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Shibaura Institute of TechnologySaitama-cityJapan

Personalised recommendations