In this paper, we show that preferences intervene twice in argumentation frameworks: i) to compute standard solutions (i.e. extensions), and ii) to refine those solutions (i.e. to return only the preferred extensions). The two roles are independent and obey to distinct postulates. After introducing and studying the postulates, we provide an example of a formal framework which models the two roles and verifies all the proposed postulates.


Argumentation Framework Prefer Solution Nonmonotonic Reasoning Attack Relation Prefer Extension 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Amgoud, L., Caminada, M., Cayrol, C., Lagasquie, M., Prakken, H.: Towards a consensual formal model: inference part. Technical report, Deliverable D2.2: Draft Formal Semantics for Inference and Decision-Making. ASPIC project (2004)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C.: A reasoning model based on the production of acceptable arguments. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Int. 34, 197–216 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Amgoud, L., Vesic, S.: Repairing preference-based argumentation systems. In: IJCAI 2009, pp. 665–670 (2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Amgoud, L., Vesic, S.: Generalizing stable semantics by preferences. In: Proceedings of COMMA 2010, pp. 39–50 (2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. J. of Logic and Computation 13(3), 429–448 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brewka, G., Niemela, I., Truszczynski, M.: Preferences and nonmonotonic reasoning. AI Magazine, 69–78 (2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dimopoulos, Y., Moraitis, P., Amgoud, L.: Extending argumentation to make good decisions. In: Rossi, F., Tsoukias, A. (eds.) ADT 2009. LNCS, vol. 5783, pp. 225–236. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dung, P.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. AIJ 77, 321–357 (1995)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kaci, S.: Refined preference-based argumentation framworks. In: Proceedings of COMMA 2010, pp. 299–310 (2010)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Modgil, S.: Reasoning about preferences in argumentation frameworks. AIJ 173(9-10), 901–934 (2009)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Prakken, H.: An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. Journal of Argument and Computation (2010) (in press)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Simari, G., Loui, R.: A mathematical treatment of defeasible reasoning and its implementation. Artificial Intelligence Journal 53, 125–157 (1992)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Leila Amgoud
    • 1
  • Srdjan Vesic
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut de Recherche en Informatique de ToulouseToulouse Cedex 9France

Personalised recommendations