Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

International Workshop on Constraint Solving and Constraint Logic Programming

CSCLP 2009: Recent Advances in Constraints pp 1–18Cite as

Solving Weighted Argumentation Frameworks with Soft Constraints

  • Conference paper

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 6384))

Abstract

We suggest soft constraints as a mean to parametrically represent and solve “weighted” Argumentation problems: different kinds of preference levels related to arguments, e.g. a score representing a “fuzziness”, a “cost” or a probability level of each argument, can be represented by choosing different semiring algebraic structures. The novel idea is to provide a common computational and quantitative framework where the computation of the classical Dung’s extensions, e.g. the admissible extension, has an associated score representing “how much good” the set is. Preference values associated to arguments are clearly more informative and can be used to prefer a given set of arguments over others with the same characteristics (e.g. admissibility). Moreover, we propose a mapping from weighted Argumentation Frameworks to Soft Constraint Satisfaction Problems (SCSPs); with this mapping we can compute Dung semantics (e.g. admissible and stable) by solving the related SCSP. To implement this mapping we use JaCoP, a Java constraint solver.

Research partially supported by MIUR PRIN 20089M932N project: “Innovative and multi-disciplinary approaches for constraint and preference reasoning”.

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

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 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

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.-C., Livet, P.: On bipolarity in argumentation frameworks. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 23(10), 1062–1093 (2008)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C.: Inferring from inconsistency in preference-based argumentation frameworks. J. Autom. Reasoning 29(2), 125–169 (2002)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. J. Log. Comput. 13(3), 429–448 (2003)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Besnard, P., Doutre, S.: Checking the acceptability of a set of arguments. In: Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning, pp. 59–64 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bistarelli, S.: Semirings for Soft Constraint Solving and Programming. LNCS, vol. 2962. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Bistarelli, S., Montanari, U., Rossi, F.: Soft concurrent constraint programming. ACM Trans. Comput. Logic 7(3), 563–589 (2006)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Bistarelli, S., Montanari, U., Rossi, F.: Semiring-based Constraint Solving and Optimization. Journal of the ACM 44(2), 201–236 (1997)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Bistarelli, S., Santini, F.: Propagating multitrust within trust networks. In: ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, pp. 1990–1994. ACM, New York (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bistarelli, S., Santini, F.: A common computational framework for semiring-based argumentation systems. In: European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, ECAI 2010 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Coste-Marquis, S., Devred, C., Marquis, P.: Constrained argumentation frameworks. In: Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR), pp. 112–122. AAAI Press, Menlo Park (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  11. 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), 321–357 (1995)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Dunne, P.E., Hunter, A., McBurney, P., Parsons, S., Wooldridge, M.: Inconsistency tolerance in weighted argument systems. In: Conf. on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 851–858. IFAAMS (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Dunne, P.E., Hunter, A., McBurney, P., Parsons, S., Wooldridge, M.: Inconsistency tolerance in weighted argument systems. In: Proceedings of The 8th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, AAMAS 2009, pp. 851–858. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Egly, U., Gaggl, S.A., Woltran, S.: ASPARTIX: Implementing argumentation frameworks using answer-set programming. In: Garcia de la Banda, M., Pontelli, E. (eds.) ICLP 2008. LNCS, vol. 5366, pp. 734–738. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  15. Haenni, R.: Probabilistic argumentation. J. Applied Logic 7(2), 155–176 (2009)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Janssen, J., De Cock, M., Vermeir, D.: Fuzzy argumentation frameworks. In: Information Processing and Management of Uncertainty in Knowledge-based Systems, pp. 513–520 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Jøsang, A., Ismail, R., Boyd, C.: A survey of trust and reputation systems for online service provision. Decis. Support Syst. 43(2), 618–644 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Jung, H., Tambe, M., Kulkarni, S.: Argumentation as distributed constraint satisfaction: applications and results. In: Conference on Autonomous Agents (AGENTS), pp. 324–331. ACM, New York (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Kohlas, J.: Probabilistic argumentation systems a new way to combine logic with probability. J. of Applied Logic 1(3-4), 225–253 (2003)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. Kraus, S., Sycara, K., Evenchik, A.: Reaching agreements through argumentation: a logical model and implementation. Artif. Intell. 104(1-2), 1–69 (1998)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  21. Kuchcinski, K., Szymanek, R.: Jacop - java constraint programming solver (2001), http://jacop.osolpro.com/

  22. Modgil, S.: Reasoning about preferences in argumentation frameworks. Artif. Intell. 173(9-10), 901–934 (2009)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  23. Montanari, U.: Networks of constraints: Fundamental properties and applications to picture processing. Inf. Sci. 7, 95–132 (1974)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  24. Nieves, J.C., Cortés, U., Osorio, M.: Possibilistic-based argumentation: An answer set programming approach. In: Mexican International Conference on Computer Science (ENC), pp. 249–260. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  25. O’Madadhain, J., Fisher, D., White, S., Boey, Y.: The JUNG (Java Universal Network/Graph) framework. Technical report, UC Irvine (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Schroeder, M., Schweimeier, R.: Fuzzy argumentation for negotiating agents. In: AAMAS, pp. 942–943. ACM, New York (2002)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dipartimento di Matematica e Informatica, Università di Perugia, Italy

    Stefano Bistarelli, Daniele Pirolandi & Francesco Santini

  2. Istituto di Informatica e Telematica (CNR), Pisa, Italy

    Stefano Bistarelli

  3. Dipartimento di Scienze, Università “G. d’Annunzio”, Pescara, Italy

    Francesco Santini

Authors
  1. Stefano Bistarelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Daniele Pirolandi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Francesco Santini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Software, Technical University of Catalonia, C. Jordi Girona 1-3, 08034, Barcelona, Spain

    Javier Larrosa

  2. Cork Constraint Computation Centre, University College Cork, Western Road, Corcaigh, Co., Cork, Ireland

    Barry O’Sullivan

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Bistarelli, S., Pirolandi, D., Santini, F. (2011). Solving Weighted Argumentation Frameworks with Soft Constraints. In: Larrosa, J., O’Sullivan, B. (eds) Recent Advances in Constraints. CSCLP 2009. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 6384. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-19486-3_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-19486-3_1

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-19485-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-19486-3

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation