Skip to main content

Practical Argumentation Semantics for Pareto Optimality and Its Relationships with Values

  • Conference paper

Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNAI,volume 7543)

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

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (Canada)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (Canada)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   49.99
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. 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)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  2. Baroni, B.: Scc-recursiveness: a general schema for argumentation semantics. Artificial Intelligence 168(1-2), 162–210 (2005)

    CrossRef  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Bench-Capon, T.J.M., Atkinson, K.: Abstract Argumentation and Values. Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence Edition, pp. 45–64. Springer (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  4. 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)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Caminada, M.: Semi-stable semantics. In: Proc. of The First International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2006), pp. 121–130 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  6. 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)

    Google Scholar 

  7. 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)

    CrossRef  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. 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)

    Google Scholar 

  9. 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)

    Google Scholar 

  10. 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)

    Google Scholar 

  11. 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)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Koutsoyiannis, A.: Modern Microeconomics. Palgrave Macmillan (1979)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Lagerspetz, E.: Ad hominem arguments in practical argumentation. Argumentation 9(2), 363–370 (1995)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  14. 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)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Rahwan, I., Larson, K.: Pareto optimality in abstract argumentation. In: Proc. of The 23rd National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 150–155 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  16. 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)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Sawamura, H., Yamashita, M., Umeda, Y.: Applying dialectic agents to argumentation in e-commerce. Electronic Commerce Research 3(3-4), 297–313 (2003)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  18. 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)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Walton, D.: Argumentation methods for artificial intelligence in law. Springer (2005)

    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

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)