HANDLING PREFERENCES IN ARGUMENTATION FRAMEWORKS WITH NECESSITIES

Imane Boudhar, Farid Nouioua, Vincent Risch

Abstract

Argumentation theory is a promising reasoning model which is more and more used to solve various key problems in artificial intelligence. Most of the developments in this domain are based on extended versions of Dung argumentation frameworks (AFs). In this paper, we propose an argumentation model that extends Dung AFs by two additional aspects : a necessity relation that represents a particular positive interaction between arguments and a preference relation that allows to represent arguments that do not have the same strength.

References

  1. Amgoud, L. and Cayrol, C. (2002). A reasoning model based on the production of acceptable arguments. Annals of Mathemathics and Artificial Intelligence, 34:197-216.
  2. Amgoud, L. and Vesic, S. (2010). Handling inconsistency with preference-based argumentation. In 4th International Conference on Scalable Uncertainty Management (SUM'10), pages 56-69.
  3. Amgoud, L. and Vesic, S. (2011). Two roles of preferences in argumentation frameworks. In 11th European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty (ECSQARU11), pages 86-97.
  4. Bench-Capon, T. (2003). Persuasion in practical argument using value based argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation, 13(3):429-448.
  5. Besnard, P. and Hunter, A. (2008). Elements of Argumentation. The MIT Press, London, 2nd edition.
  6. Boella, G., Gabbay, D., Torre, L. V. D., and Villata, S. (2010). Support in abstract argumentation. In 3rd International Conference on Computational Models of Argument, pages 40-51.
  7. Bondarenko, A., Dung, P., Kowalski, R., and Toni, F. (1997). An abstract, argumentation-theoretic approach to default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 93:63-101.
  8. Brewka, G. and Woltran, S. (2010). Abstract dialectical frameworks. In International Conference on the Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR10), pages 102-111.
  9. Caminada, M. and Amgoud, L. (2007). On the evaluation of argumentation formalisms. Artificial Intelligence, 171:286-310.
  10. Cayrol, C. and Lagasquie-Schiex, M. (2005). On the acceptability of arguments in bipolar argumentation frameworks. In Eighth European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty, pages 378-389.
  11. Cayrol, C. and Lagasquie-Schiex, M. (2010). Coalitions of arguments: A tool for handling bipolar argumentation frameworks. Int. J. Intell. Syst, 25(1):83-109.
  12. Dung, P. (1995). On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence, 77(2):321-357.
  13. G. Governatori, M. Maher, G. A. and Billington, D. (2004). Argumentation semantics for defeasible logic. Journal of Logic and Computation, 14:675-702.
  14. Garcia, A. and Simari, G. (2004). Defeasible logic programming: an argumentative approach. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming, 4:95-138.
  15. Modgil, S. (2009). Reasoning about preferences in argumentation frameworks. Artificial Intelligence, 173:901-934.
  16. Nouioua, F. and Risch, V. (2011). Argumentation frameworks with necessities. In 5th International Conference on Scalable Uncertainty Management (SUM2011).
  17. Prakken, H. (2010). An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. Argument and Computation, 1:93-124.
  18. Prakken, H. and Sartor, G. (1997). Argument-based extended logic programming with defeasible priorities. Journal of Applied Non-classical Logics, 7:25-75.
  19. Prakken, S. M. . H. (2011). Revisiting preferences and argumentation. 14:1021-1026.
  20. Simari, G. and Loui, R. (1992). A mathematical treatment of defeasible argumentation and its implementation. Artificial Intelligence, 53:125-157.
  21. Vreeswijk, G. (1997). Abstract argumentation systems. Artificial Intelligence, 90:225-279.
Download


Paper Citation


in Harvard Style

Boudhar I., Nouioua F. and Risch V. (2012). HANDLING PREFERENCES IN ARGUMENTATION FRAMEWORKS WITH NECESSITIES . In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence - Volume 1: ICAART, ISBN 978-989-8425-95-9, pages 340-345. DOI: 10.5220/0003746103400345


in Bibtex Style

@conference{icaart12,
author={Imane Boudhar and Farid Nouioua and Vincent Risch},
title={HANDLING PREFERENCES IN ARGUMENTATION FRAMEWORKS WITH NECESSITIES},
booktitle={Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence - Volume 1: ICAART,},
year={2012},
pages={340-345},
publisher={SciTePress},
organization={INSTICC},
doi={10.5220/0003746103400345},
isbn={978-989-8425-95-9},
}


in EndNote Style

TY - CONF
JO - Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence - Volume 1: ICAART,
TI - HANDLING PREFERENCES IN ARGUMENTATION FRAMEWORKS WITH NECESSITIES
SN - 978-989-8425-95-9
AU - Boudhar I.
AU - Nouioua F.
AU - Risch V.
PY - 2012
SP - 340
EP - 345
DO - 10.5220/0003746103400345