Abstract
This paper proposes a practical argumentation semantics specific to practical argumentation. This is motivated by our hypothesis that consequences of such argumentation should satisfy Pareto optimality because the consequences strongly depend on desires, aims, or values an individual agent or a group of agents has. We define a practical argumentation framework and two kinds of extensions, preferred and grounded extensions, with respect to each group of agents. We show that evaluating Pareto optimality can be translated to evaluating preferred extensions of a particular practical argumentation framework, and our semantics is a natural extension of Dungean semantics in terms of considering more than one defeat relation. Furthermore, we show that our semantics has the ability to identify both objectively and subjectively acceptable arguments defined on value-based argumentation frameworks. We give a generality order of four practical argumentation frameworks specified by taking into account Dungean semantics and Pareto optimality. We show that a member of preferred extensions of the most specific one is not just Pareto optimal, but also it is theoretically justified.
Keywords
- Argumentation
- Collective decision making
- Reasoning
- Logic-based approaches and methods
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Amgoud, L., Dimopoulos, Y., Moraitis, P.: A General Framework for Argumentation-Based Negotiation. In: Rahwan, I., Parsons, S., Reed, C. (eds.) ArgMAS 2007. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4946, pp. 1–17. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)
Baroni, B.: Scc-recursiveness: a general schema for argumentation semantics. Artificial Intelligence 168(1-2), 162–210 (2005)
Bench-Capon, T.J.M., Atkinson, K.: Abstract Argumentation and Values. Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence Edition, pp. 45–64. Springer (2009)
Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Value-based argumentation frameworks. In: Proc. of The 9th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning (NMR 2002), pp. 443–454 (2002)
Caminada, M.: Semi-stable semantics. In: Proc. of The First International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2006), pp. 121–130 (2006)
Coste-Marquis, S., Devred, C., Marquis, P.: Prudent semantics for argumentation frameworks. In: Proc. of The 17th International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence (ICTAI 2005), pp. 568–572 (2005)
Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its funedamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming, and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence 77, 321–357 (1995)
Dung, P.M., Mancarella, P., Toni, F.: A dialectic procedure for sceptical, assumption-based argumentation. In: Proc. of The First International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2006), pp. 145–156 (2006)
Dung, P.M., Thang, P.M., Toni, F.: Towards argumentation-based contract negotiation. In: Proc. of The Second International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2008), pp. 134–146 (2008)
Kido, H., Kurihara, M.: Computational dialectics based on specialization and generalization: a new reasoning method for conflict resolution. In: Proc. Second International Workshop on Juris-informatics (JURISIN 2008), pp. 228–241 (2009)
Kido, H., Nitta, K.: Practical argumentation semantics for socially efficient defeasible consequence. In: Proc. of The 10th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 267–274 (2011)
Koutsoyiannis, A.: Modern Microeconomics. Palgrave Macmillan (1979)
Lagerspetz, E.: Ad hominem arguments in practical argumentation. Argumentation 9(2), 363–370 (1995)
Prakken, H.: Combining sceptical epistemic reasoning with credulous practical reasoning. In: Proc. of The First International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2006), pp. 311–322 (2006)
Rahwan, I., Larson, K.: Pareto optimality in abstract argumentation. In: Proc. of The 23rd National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 150–155 (2008)
Routley, R., Meyer, R.K.: Dialectical logic, classical logic, and the consistency of the world. Studies in East European Thought 16(1-2), 1–25 (1976)
Sawamura, H., Yamashita, M., Umeda, Y.: Applying dialectic agents to argumentation in e-commerce. Electronic Commerce Research 3(3-4), 297–313 (2003)
Verheij, B.: Two approaches to dialectical argumentation: admissible sets and argumentation stages. In: Proc. 8th Dutch Conference on Artificial Intelligence (NAIC 1996), pp. 357–368 (1996)
Walton, D.: Argumentation methods for artificial intelligence in law. Springer (2005)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Kido, H. (2012). Practical Argumentation Semantics for Pareto Optimality and Its Relationships with Values. In: McBurney, P., Parsons, S., Rahwan, I. (eds) Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems. ArgMAS 2011. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 7543. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33152-7_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33152-7_3
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-33151-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-33152-7
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)
