Skip to main content

On Supported Inference and Extension Selection in Abstract Argumentation Frameworks

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty (ECSQARU 2015)

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  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)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  2. Amgoud, L., Vesic, S.: Rich preference-based argumentation frameworks. Int. J. Approximate Reasoning 55, 585–606 (2014)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Baroni, P., Caminada, M., Giacomin, M.: An introduction to argumentation semantics. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 26(4), 365–410 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Baroni, P., Giacomin, M.: On principle-based evaluation of extension-based argumentation semantics. Artif. Intell. J. 171, 675–700 (2007)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  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. 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)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  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. 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. Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.-C.: Graduality in argumentation. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 23, 245–297 (2005)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  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. 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. 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. Dubois, D., Fargier, H., Prade, H.: Refinements of the maximin approach to decision-making in fuzzy environment. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 81, 103–122 (1996)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Dung, P., Mancarella, P., Toni, F.: Computing ideal skeptical argumentation. Artif. Intell. J. 171, 642–674 (2007)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Dunne, P.E., Dvorák, W., Woltran, S.: Parametric properties of ideal semantics. Artif. Intell. J. 202, 1–28 (2013)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  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. 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. 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. Moulin, H.: Axioms of Cooperative Decision Making. Cambridge University Press, New York (1988)

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  23. Wu, Y., Caminada, M.: A labelling-based justification status of arguments. Stud. Logic 3(4), 12–29 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pierre Marquis .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this paper

Cite this paper

Konieczny, S., Marquis, P., Vesic, S. (2015). On Supported Inference and Extension Selection in Abstract Argumentation Frameworks. In: Destercke, S., Denoeux, T. (eds) Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty. ECSQARU 2015. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 9161. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20807-7_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20807-7_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-20806-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-20807-7

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics