European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning and Uncertainty

ECSQARU 2015: Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty pp 49-59 | Cite as

On Supported Inference and Extension Selection in Abstract Argumentation Frameworks

  • Sébastien Konieczny
  • Pierre Marquis
  • Srdjan Vesic
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9161)

Abstract

We present two approaches for deriving more arguments from an abstract argumentation framework than the ones obtained using sceptical inference, that is often too cautious. The first approach consists in selecting only some of the extensions. We point out several choice criteria to achieve such a selection process. Choices are based either on the attack relation between extensions or on the support of the arguments in each extension. The second approach consists of the definition of a new inference policy, between sceptical and credulous inference, and based as well on the support of the arguments. We illustrate the two approaches on examples, study their properties, and formally compare their inferential powers.

References

  1. 1.
    Amgoud, L., Ben-Naim, J.: Ranking-based semantics for argumentation frameworks. In: Liu, W., Subrahmanian, V.S., Wijsen, J. (eds.) SUM 2013. LNCS, vol. 8078, pp. 134–147. Springer, Heidelberg (2013) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Amgoud, L., Vesic, S.: Rich preference-based argumentation frameworks. Int. J. Approximate Reasoning 55, 585–606 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baroni, P., Caminada, M., Giacomin, M.: An introduction to argumentation semantics. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 26(4), 365–410 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baroni, P., Giacomin, M.: On principle-based evaluation of extension-based argumentation semantics. Artif. Intell. J. 171, 675–700 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Benferhat, S., Cayrol, C., Dubois, D., Lang, J., Prade, H.: Inconsistency management and prioritized syntax-based entailment. In: Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 1993), pp. 640–647 (1993)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brams, S.J., Fishburn, P.C.: Voting procedures. In: Kenneth, A.K.S., Arrow, J., Suzumura, K. (eds.) Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare. Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 1, pp. 173–236. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Caminada, M.: Semi-stable semantics. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2006), pp. 121–130 (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cayrol, C., Devred, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.-C.: Acceptability semantics accounting for strength of attacks in argumentation. In: Proceedings of the European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI 2010), pp. 995–996 (2010)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.-C.: Graduality in argumentation. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 23, 245–297 (2005)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Coste-Marquis, S., Devred, C., Marquis, P.: Prudent semantics for argumentation frameworks. In: 17th IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence (ICTAI 2005), pp. 568–572 (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Coste-Marquis, S., Konieczny, S., Marquis, P., Ouali, M.A.: Selecting extensions in weighted argumentation frameworks. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2012), pp. 342–349 (2012)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    da Costa Pereira, C., Tettamanzi, A., Villata, S.: Changing one’s mind: erase or rewind? In: Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2011), pp. 164–171 (2011)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dubois, D., Fargier, H., Prade, H.: Refinements of the maximin approach to decision-making in fuzzy environment. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 81, 103–122 (1996)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dung, P., Mancarella, P., Toni, F.: Computing ideal skeptical argumentation. Artif. Intell. J. 171, 642–674 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and \(n\)-person games. Artif. Intell. J. 77, 321–357 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dunne, P., Hunter, A., McBurney, P., Parsons, S., Wooldridge, M.: Weighted argument systems: basic definitions, algorithms, and complexity results. Artif. Intell. J. 175(2), 457–486 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dunne, P.E., Dvorák, W., Woltran, S.: Parametric properties of ideal semantics. Artif. Intell. J. 202, 1–28 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dvořák, W.: On the complexity of computing the justification status of an argument. In: Modgil, S., Oren, N., Toni, F. (eds.) TAFA 2011. LNCS, vol. 7132, pp. 32–49. Springer, Heidelberg (2012) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Konieczny, S., Marquis, P., Vesic, S.: On supported inference and extension selection in abstract argumentation frameworks. Technical report, CRIL, CNRS - Univ. Artois (2015)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Martínez, D., García, A., Simari, G.: Strong and weak forms of abstract argument defense. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2008), pp. 216–227. IOS Press (2008)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Martínez, D.C., García, A., Simari, G.: An abstract argumentation framework with varied-strength attacks. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2008), pp. 135–144 (2008)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Moulin, H.: Axioms of Cooperative Decision Making. Cambridge University Press, New York (1988) CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wu, Y., Caminada, M.: A labelling-based justification status of arguments. Stud. Logic 3(4), 12–29 (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sébastien Konieczny
    • 1
  • Pierre Marquis
    • 1
  • Srdjan Vesic
    • 1
  1. 1.CRILCNRS and Université d’ArtoisLensFrance

Personalised recommendations