Advertisement

Multi-sorted Argumentation

  • Tjitze Rienstra
  • Alan Perotti
  • Serena Villata
  • Dov M. Gabbay
  • Leendert van der Torre
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7132)

Abstract

In the theory of abstract argumentation, the acceptance status of arguments is normally determined for the complete set of arguments at once, under a single semantics. However, this is not always desired. In this paper, we extend the notion of an argumentation framework to a multi-sorted argumentation framework, and we motivate this extension using an example which considers practical and epistemic arguments. In a multi-sorted argumentation framework, the arguments are partitioned into a number of cells, where each cell is associated with a semantics under which its arguments are evaluated. We prove the properties of the proposed framework, and we demonstrate our theory with a number of examples. Finally, we relate our theory to the theory of modal fibring of argumentation networks.

Keywords

Multiagent System Acceptance Status Argumentation Framework Kripke Structure Acceptance Function 
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.: On the acceptability of arguments in preference-based argumentation. In: Cooper, G.F., Moral, S. (eds.) UAI 1998: Proceedings of the Fourteenth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 1–7. Morgan Kaufmann (1998)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Amgoud, L., Prade, H.: Handling threats, rewards, and explanatory arguments in a unified setting. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 20(12), 1195–1218 (2005)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baroni, P., Giacomin, M., Guida, G.: SCC-recursiveness: a general schema for argumentation semantics. Artificial Intelligence 168(1-2), 162–210 (2005)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barringer, H., Gabbay, D.M.: Modal and Temporal Argumentation Networks. In: Manna, Z., Peled, D.A. (eds.) Time for Verification. LNCS, vol. 6200, pp. 1–25. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Value-based argumentation frameworks. In: Benferhat, S., Giunchiglia, E. (eds.) NMR, pp. 443–454 (2002)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brewka, G., Eiter, T.: Argumentation Context Systems: A Framework for Abstract Group Argumentation. In: Erdem, E., Lin, F., Schaub, T. (eds.) LPNMR 2009. LNCS, vol. 5753, pp. 44–57. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Caminada, M.: Semi-stable semantics. In: Computational Models of Argument; Proceedings of COMMA, pp. 121–130 (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Caminada, M.: On the Issue of Reinstatement in Argumentation. In: Fisher, M., van der Hoek, W., Konev, B., Lisitsa, A. (eds.) JELIA 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4160, pp. 111–123. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Coste-Marquis, S., Devred, C., Marquis, P.: Prudent semantics for argumentation frameworks (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    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)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gabbay, D.M.: Fibring argumentation frames. Studia Logica 93(2-3), 231–295 (2009)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Modgil, S., Caminada, M.: Proof theories and algorithms for abstract argumentation frameworks. In: Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 105–129 (2009)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Prakken, H.: Combining sceptical epistemic reasoning with credulous practical reasoning. In: Dunne, P.E., Bench-Capon, T.J.M. (eds.) COMMA. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 144, pp. 311–322. IOS Press (2006)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rotstein, N.D., García, A.J., Simari, G.R.: Reasoning from desires to intentions: A dialectical framework. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Second AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2007), pp. 136–141. AAAI Press (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tjitze Rienstra
    • 1
  • Alan Perotti
    • 2
  • Serena Villata
    • 3
  • Dov M. Gabbay
    • 4
  • Leendert van der Torre
    • 1
  1. 1.Computer Science and CommunicationUniversity of LuxembourgLuxembourg
  2. 2.Dip. di InformaticaUniversity of TurinItaly
  3. 3.EdelweissINRIA Sophia AntipolisFrance
  4. 4.Dept. Computer ScienceKing’s College LondonUK

Personalised recommendations