Abstract
We present two approaches for deriving more arguments from an abstract argumentation framework than the ones obtained using sceptical inference, that is often too cautious. The first approach consists in selecting only some of the extensions. We point out several choice criteria to achieve such a selection process. Choices are based either on the attack relation between extensions or on the support of the arguments in each extension. The second approach consists of the definition of a new inference policy, between sceptical and credulous inference, and based as well on the support of the arguments. We illustrate the two approaches on examples, study their properties, and formally compare their inferential powers.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Amgoud, L., Ben-Naim, J.: Ranking-based semantics for argumentation frameworks. In: Liu, W., Subrahmanian, V.S., Wijsen, J. (eds.) SUM 2013. LNCS, vol. 8078, pp. 134–147. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)
Amgoud, L., Vesic, S.: Rich preference-based argumentation frameworks. Int. J. Approximate Reasoning 55, 585–606 (2014)
Baroni, P., Caminada, M., Giacomin, M.: An introduction to argumentation semantics. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 26(4), 365–410 (2011)
Baroni, P., Giacomin, M.: On principle-based evaluation of extension-based argumentation semantics. Artif. Intell. J. 171, 675–700 (2007)
Benferhat, S., Cayrol, C., Dubois, D., Lang, J., Prade, H.: Inconsistency management and prioritized syntax-based entailment. In: Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 1993), pp. 640–647 (1993)
Brams, S.J., Fishburn, P.C.: Voting procedures. In: Kenneth, A.K.S., Arrow, J., Suzumura, K. (eds.) Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare. Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 1, pp. 173–236. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2002)
Caminada, M.: Semi-stable semantics. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2006), pp. 121–130 (2006)
Cayrol, C., Devred, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.-C.: Acceptability semantics accounting for strength of attacks in argumentation. In: Proceedings of the European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI 2010), pp. 995–996 (2010)
Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.-C.: Graduality in argumentation. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 23, 245–297 (2005)
Coste-Marquis, S., Devred, C., Marquis, P.: Prudent semantics for argumentation frameworks. In: 17th IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence (ICTAI 2005), pp. 568–572 (2005)
Coste-Marquis, S., Konieczny, S., Marquis, P., Ouali, M.A.: Selecting extensions in weighted argumentation frameworks. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2012), pp. 342–349 (2012)
da Costa Pereira, C., Tettamanzi, A., Villata, S.: Changing one’s mind: erase or rewind? In: Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2011), pp. 164–171 (2011)
Dubois, D., Fargier, H., Prade, H.: Refinements of the maximin approach to decision-making in fuzzy environment. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 81, 103–122 (1996)
Dung, P., Mancarella, P., Toni, F.: Computing ideal skeptical argumentation. Artif. Intell. J. 171, 642–674 (2007)
Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and \(n\)-person games. Artif. Intell. J. 77, 321–357 (1995)
Dunne, P., Hunter, A., McBurney, P., Parsons, S., Wooldridge, M.: Weighted argument systems: basic definitions, algorithms, and complexity results. Artif. Intell. J. 175(2), 457–486 (2011)
Dunne, P.E., Dvorák, W., Woltran, S.: Parametric properties of ideal semantics. Artif. Intell. J. 202, 1–28 (2013)
Dvořák, W.: On the complexity of computing the justification status of an argument. In: Modgil, S., Oren, N., Toni, F. (eds.) TAFA 2011. LNCS, vol. 7132, pp. 32–49. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)
Konieczny, S., Marquis, P., Vesic, S.: On supported inference and extension selection in abstract argumentation frameworks. Technical report, CRIL, CNRS - Univ. Artois (2015)
Martínez, D., García, A., Simari, G.: Strong and weak forms of abstract argument defense. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2008), pp. 216–227. IOS Press (2008)
Martínez, D.C., García, A., Simari, G.: An abstract argumentation framework with varied-strength attacks. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2008), pp. 135–144 (2008)
Moulin, H.: Axioms of Cooperative Decision Making. Cambridge University Press, New York (1988)
Wu, Y., Caminada, M.: A labelling-based justification status of arguments. Stud. Logic 3(4), 12–29 (2010)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this paper
Cite this paper
Konieczny, S., Marquis, P., Vesic, S. (2015). On Supported Inference and Extension Selection in Abstract Argumentation Frameworks. In: Destercke, S., Denoeux, T. (eds) Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty. ECSQARU 2015. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 9161. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20807-7_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20807-7_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-20806-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-20807-7
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)