Arguing About End-of-Life of Packagings: Preferences to the Rescue

  • Bruno Yun
  • Pierre BisquertEmail author
  • Patrice Buche
  • Madalina Croitoru
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 672)


Argumentation methods and associated tools permit to analyze arguments against or in favor of a set of alternatives under discussion. The outputs of the argument methods are sets of conflict-free arguments collectively defending each other, called extensions. In case of multiple extensions, it is often difficult to select one out of many alternatives. We present in this paper the implementation of an complementary approach which permits to filter or rank extensions according to the expression of preferences. Methods and tools are illustrated on a real use case in food packagings. The aim is to help the industry choose among different end-of-life possibilities by linking together consumer behavior insights, socio-economic developments and technical properties of packagings. The tool has been used on a real use-case concerning end-of-life possibilities for packagings.


Anaerobic Digestion Argumentation Framework Argumentation System 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.



The authors would like to thank the partners of the Pack4Fresh project, for all their help during the argument elicitation phase as well as for their constant feedback.


  1. 1.
    Amgoud, L., Prade, H.: Explaining qualitative decision under uncertainty by argumentation. In: Proceedings, The Twenty-First National Conference on Artificial Intelligence and the Eighteenth Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference, July 16–20, Boston, Massachusetts, USA, pp. 219–224 (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Amgoud, L., Vesic, S.: Two roles of preferences in argumentation frameworks. In: Liu, W. (ed.) ECSQARU 2011. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 6717, pp. 86–97. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-22152-1_8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Arioua, A., Croitoru, M.: Formalizing explanatory dialogues. In: Beierle, C., Dekhtyar, A. (eds.) SUM 2015. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 9310, pp. 282–297. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-23540-0_19 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Arioua, A., Croitoru, M.: Dialectical characterization of consistent query explanation with existential rules. In: Proceedings of FLAIRS 2016, pp. 621–625 (2016)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Arioua, A., Croitoru, M.: A dialectical proof theory for universal acceptance in coherent logic-based argumentation frameworks. In: Proceedings of ECAI (2016, to appear)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Croitoru, M., Thomopoulos, R., Vesic, S.: Introducing preference-based argumentation to inconsistent ontological knowledge bases. In: Chen, Q., Torroni, P., Villata, S., Hsu, J., Omicini, A. (eds.) PRIMA 2015. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 9387, pp. 594–602. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-25524-8_42 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Croitoru, M., Vesic, S.: What can argumentation do for inconsistent ontology query answering? In: Liu, W., Subrahmanian, V.S., Wijsen, J. (eds.) SUM 2013. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 8078, pp. 15–29. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-40381-1_2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif. Intell. 77(2), 321–358 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kaci, S.: Working with Preferences: Less Is More. Cognitive Technologies. Springer, New York (2011)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Modgil, S., Prakken, H.: The ASPIC\({}^{\text{+ }}\) framework for structured argumentation: a tutorial. Argument Comput. 5(1), 31–62 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tamani, N., Mosse, P., Croitoru, M., Buche, P., Guillard, V.: A food packaging use case for argumentation. In: Closs, S., Studer, R., Garoufallou, E., Sicilia, M.-A. (eds.) MTSR 2014. CCIS, vol. 478, pp. 344–358. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-13674-5_31 Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tamani, N., Mosse, P., Croitoru, M., Buche, P., Guillard, V., Guillaume, C., Gontard, N.: Eco-efficient packaging material selection for fresh produce: industrial session. In: Hernandez, N., Jäschke, R., Croitoru, M. (eds.) ICCS 2014. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 8577, pp. 305–310. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-08389-6_27 Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tamani, N., Mosse, P., Croitoru, M., Buche, P., Guillard, V., Guillaume, C., Gontard, N.: An argumentation system for eco-efficient packaging material selection. Comput. Electron. Agric. 113, 174–192 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bruno Yun
    • 1
  • Pierre Bisquert
    • 2
    Email author
  • Patrice Buche
    • 2
  • Madalina Croitoru
    • 1
  1. 1.LIRMMUniversity of MontpellierMontpellierFrance
  2. 2.IATE, INRAMontpellierFrance

Personalised recommendations