Advertisement

Resource Boundedness and Argumentation

  • Nicolás D. Rotstein
  • Nir Oren
  • Timothy J. Norman
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7132)

Abstract

In this paper we extend the traditional Dung argumentation framework with cardinality constraints over the set of warranted arguments. This results in a new definition for argumentation semantics wherein arguments within an extension are both in some sense consistent and compliant with the constraints imposed on the system. After discussing the theoretical aspects of such a resource-bounded argumentation framework we describe its utility via an application to a concrete application domain: the scheduling of demand responsive transport.

Keywords

Boolean Function Argument Framework Cardinality Constraint Prefer Extension Abstraction Principle 
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.
    Alchourrón, C., Gärdenfors, P., Makinson, D.: On the logic of theory change: Partial meet contraction and revision functions. The Journal of Symbolic Logic 50, 510–530 (1985)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ambrosino, G., Nelson, J.D., Romanazzo, M.: Demand responsive transport services: Towards the flexible mobility agency. ENEA Publications (2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Practical reasoning as presumptive argumentation using action based alternating transition systems. Artif. Intell. 171(10-15), 855–874 (2007)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baumann, R., Brewka, G.: Expanding argumentation frameworks: Enforcing and monotonicity results. In: COMMA, pp. 75–86 (2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Boella, G., Gabbay, D., van der Torre, L., Villata, S.: Meta-Argumentation Modelling I: Methodology and Techniques. Studia Logica 93, 297–355 (2009)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Boella, G., Kaci, S., van der Torre, L.: Dynamics in argumentation with single extensions: Abstraction principles and the grounded extension. In: Sossai, C., Chemello, G. (eds.) ECSQARU 2009. LNCS, vol. 5590, pp. 107–118. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Boella, G., van der Torre, L., Villata, S.: On the acceptability of meta-arguments. In: IAT, pp. 259–262 (2009)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brake, J., Mulley, C., Nelson, J.D., Wright, S.: Key lessons learned from recent experience with flexible transport services. Transport Policy 14(6), 458–466 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chua, L.O., Lin, G.N.: Non-linear optimization with constraints: A cook-book approach. International Journal of Circuit Theory and Applications 11(2), 141–159 (1983)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Coste-Marquis, S., Devred, C., Marquis, P.: Constrained argumentation frameworks. In: KR, pp. 112–122 (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), 321–358 (1995)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dunne, P.E., Hunter, A., McBurney, P., Parsons, S., Wooldridge, M.: Weighted argument systems: Basic definitions, algorithms, and complexity results. Artif. Intell. 175(2), 457–486 (2011)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kumar, V.: Algorithms for constraint-satisfaction problems: a survey. AI Mag. 13, 32–44 (1992)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Matt, P.A., Morge, M., Toni, F.: Combining statistics and arguments to compute trust. In: AAMAS, pp. 209–216 (2010)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Oren, N., Panagiotidi, S., Vázquez-Salceda, J., Modgil, S., Luck, M., Miles, S.: Towards a Formalisation of Electronic Contracting Environments. In: Hübner, J.F., Matson, E., Boissier, O., Dignum, V. (eds.) COIN@AAMAS 2008. LNCS, vol. 5428, pp. 156–171. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Oren, N., Reed, C., Luck, M.: Moving between argumentation frameworks. In: Computational Models of Argument, Proceedings of COMMA 2010, pp. 379–390 (2010)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rotstein, N.D., Moguillansky, M., Falappa, M.A., García, A.J., Simari, G.R.: Argument Theory Change: Revision Upon Warrant. In: COMMA, pp. 336–347 (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nicolás D. Rotstein
    • 1
  • Nir Oren
    • 1
  • Timothy J. Norman
    • 1
  1. 1.dot.rural Digital Economy HubUniversity of AberdeenUnited Kingdom

Personalised recommendations