Web Based System for Weighted Defeasible Argumentation
In a previous work we defined a recursive semantics for reasoning about which arguments should be warranted when extending Defeasible Argumentation with defeasibility levels for arguments. Our approach is based on a general notion of collective conflict among arguments and on the fact that if an argument is warranted it must be that all its sub-arguments also are warranted. An output of a program is a pair consisting of a set of warranted and a set of blocked arguments with maximum strength. Arguments that are neither warranted nor blocked correspond to rejected arguments. On this recursive semantics a program may have multiple outputs in case of circular definitions of conflicts among arguments and for these circular definitions of conflicts we define what output, called maximal ideal output, should be considered based on the claim that if an argument is excluded from an output, then all the arguments built on top of it should also be excluded from that output. In this paper we show a web based system we have designed and implemented to compute the output for programs with single and multiple outputs. For programs with multiple outputs the system also computes the maximal ideal output. An interesting feature of the system is that it provides not only both sets of warranted an blocked arguments with maximum strength but also useful information that allows to better understand why an argument is either warranted, blocked or rejected.
Keywordsweighted defeasible argumentation recursive semantics web based technologies
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Alsinet, T., Béjar, R., Godo, L.: A characterization of collective conflict for defeasible argumentation. In: Proceedings of COMMA 2010. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 216, pp. 27–38. IOS Press (2010)Google Scholar
- 3.Alsinet, T., Béjar, R., Godo, L., Guitart, F.: Using answer set programming for an scalable implementation of defeasible argumentation. In: ICTAI, pp. 1016–1021 (2012)Google Scholar
- 4.Alsinet, T., Béjar, R., Godo, L., Guitart, F.: On the implementation of a multiple outputs algorithm for defeasible argumentation. In: Proceedings of SUM 2013 (in press, 2013)Google Scholar
- 5.Alsinet, T., Béjar, R., Godo, L., Guitart, F.: RP-DeLP: A weighted defeasible argumentation framework based on a recursive semantics. Journal of Logic and Computation: Special Issue on Loops in Argumentation (submitted)Google Scholar
- 6.Amgoud, L.: Postulates for logic-based argumentation systems. In: Proceedings of the ECAI 2012 Workshop WL4AI, pp. 59–67 (2012)Google Scholar
- 8.Besnard, P., Hunter, A.: Elements of Argumentation. The MIT Press (2008)Google Scholar
- 9.Bouyias, Y.N., Demetriadis, S.N., Tsoukalas, I.A.: iargue: A web-based argumentation system supporting collaboration scripts with adaptable fading. In: Proceedings of ICALT 2008, pp. 477–479 (2008)Google Scholar
- 11.Minh Dung, P., Mancarella, P., Toni, F.: A dialectic procedure for sceptical, assumption-based argumentation. In: Proceedings of COMMA 2008. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 172, pp. 145–156. IOS Press (2006)Google Scholar
- 18.Pollock, J.L.: A recursive semantics for defeasible reasoning. In: Rahwan, I., Simari, G.R. (eds.) Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, ch. 9, pp. 173–198. Springer (2009)Google Scholar
- 19.Prakken, H., Vreeswijk, G.: Logical Systems for Defeasible Argumentation. In: Gabbay, D., Guenther, F. (eds.) Handbook of Phil. Logic, pp. 219–318. Kluwer (2002)Google Scholar
- 20.Rahwan, I., Simari, G.R. (eds.): Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence. Springer (2009)Google Scholar
- 21.Schlesinger, F., Errecalde, M., Aguirre, G.: An approach to integrate web services and argumentation into a BDI system (extended abstract). In: van der Hoek, Kaminka, Lespérance, Luck, Sen (eds.) Proceedings of AAMAS 2010, pp. 1371–1372 (2010)Google Scholar