Advertisement

Solving Weighted Argumentation Frameworks with Soft Constraints

  • Stefano Bistarelli
  • Daniele Pirolandi
  • Francesco Santini
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, 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.

Keywords

Multiagent System Soft Constraint Argumentation Framework Argument System Complete 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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 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)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C.: Inferring from inconsistency in preference-based argumentation frameworks. J. Autom. Reasoning 29(2), 125–169 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. J. Log. Comput. 13(3), 429–448 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 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. 5.
    Bistarelli, S.: Semirings for Soft Constraint Solving and Programming. LNCS, vol. 2962. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bistarelli, S., Montanari, U., Rossi, F.: Soft concurrent constraint programming. ACM Trans. Comput. Logic 7(3), 563–589 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bistarelli, S., Montanari, U., Rossi, F.: Semiring-based Constraint Solving and Optimization. Journal of the ACM 44(2), 201–236 (1997)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 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. 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. 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. 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)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 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. 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. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Haenni, R.: Probabilistic argumentation. J. Applied Logic 7(2), 155–176 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 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. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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. 19.
    Kohlas, J.: Probabilistic argumentation systems a new way to combine logic with probability. J. of Applied Logic 1(3-4), 225–253 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kraus, S., Sycara, K., Evenchik, A.: Reaching agreements through argumentation: a logical model and implementation. Artif. Intell. 104(1-2), 1–69 (1998)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kuchcinski, K., Szymanek, R.: Jacop - java constraint programming solver (2001), http://jacop.osolpro.com/
  22. 22.
    Modgil, S.: Reasoning about preferences in argumentation frameworks. Artif. Intell. 173(9-10), 901–934 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Montanari, U.: Networks of constraints: Fundamental properties and applications to picture processing. Inf. Sci. 7, 95–132 (1974)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 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. 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. 26.
    Schroeder, M., Schweimeier, R.: Fuzzy argumentation for negotiating agents. In: AAMAS, pp. 942–943. ACM, New York (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stefano Bistarelli
    • 1
    • 2
  • Daniele Pirolandi
    • 1
  • Francesco Santini
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Dipartimento di Matematica e InformaticaUniversità di PerugiaItaly
  2. 2.Istituto di Informatica e Telematica (CNR)PisaItaly
  3. 3.Dipartimento di ScienzeUniversità “G. d’Annunzio”PescaraItaly

Personalised recommendations