Skip to main content

Resource Boundedness and Argumentation

  • Conference paper

Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNAI,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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (Canada)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (Canada)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   69.99
Price excludes VAT (Canada)
  • 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. 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)

    CrossRef  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Ambrosino, G., Nelson, J.D., Romanazzo, M.: Demand responsive transport services: Towards the flexible mobility agency. ENEA Publications (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  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)

    CrossRef  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Baumann, R., Brewka, G.: Expanding argumentation frameworks: Enforcing and monotonicity results. In: COMMA, pp. 75–86 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Boella, G., Gabbay, D., van der Torre, L., Villata, S.: Meta-Argumentation Modelling I: Methodology and Techniques. Studia Logica 93, 297–355 (2009)

    CrossRef  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  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)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  7. Boella, G., van der Torre, L., Villata, S.: On the acceptability of meta-arguments. In: IAT, pp. 259–262 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  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)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  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)

    CrossRef  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  10. Coste-Marquis, S., Devred, C., Marquis, P.: Constrained argumentation frameworks. In: KR, pp. 112–122 (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), 321–358 (1995)

    CrossRef  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  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)

    CrossRef  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Kumar, V.: Algorithms for constraint-satisfaction problems: a survey. AI Mag. 13, 32–44 (1992)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Matt, P.A., Morge, M., Toni, F.: Combining statistics and arguments to compute trust. In: AAMAS, pp. 209–216 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  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)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  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. 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 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Rotstein, N.D., Oren, N., Norman, T.J. (2012). Resource Boundedness and Argumentation. In: Modgil, S., Oren, N., Toni, F. (eds) Theorie and Applications of Formal Argumentation. TAFA 2011. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 7132. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-29184-5_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-29184-5_8

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-29183-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-29184-5

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)