Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

International Conference on Innovative Techniques and Applications of Artificial Intelligence

SGAI 2013: Research and Development in Intelligent Systems XXX pp 265–271Cite as

A Viewpoint Approach to Structured Argumentation

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:

Abstract

We introduce in this paper a viewpoint-based argumentation approach in the context of the EcoBioCap project, which requirements are different actor arguments expressed over several criteria, describing the objects of a domain, to support/oppose contradictory goals. A viewpoint is an ASPIC+ argumentation system defined over a subset of rules corresponding to a single criterion. Concepts of conflict between viewpoints, independent viewpoints, and collection of independent viewpoints are the basis of our argumentation approach.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • 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

Notes

  1. 1.

    This follows the line of work of [11], because credulous attitude can lead to inconsistencies.

References

  1. S. Destercke, P. Buche, and V. Guillard. A flexible bipolar querying approach with imprecise data and guaranteed results. Fuzzy sets and Systems, 169:51–64, 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  2. S. Colucci, T. D. Noia, A. Ragone, M. Ruta, U. Straccia, and E. Tinelli. Semantic Web Information Management, chapter 19 : Informative Top-k retrieval for advanced skill management, pages 449–476. Springer-Verlag Belin Heidelberg, 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  3. H. Prakken. An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. Technical report, Department of Information and Computing Sciences. Utrecht University., 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  4. S. Modgil and H. Prakken. A general account of argumentation with preferences. Artificial Intelligence, 195:361–397, 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  5. P. Besnard and A. Hunter. Elements of Argumentation. The MIT Press, 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  6. P. M. Dung. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and \(n\)-person games. Artificial Intelligence Journal, 77:321–357, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  7. I. Rahwan and G. Simari. Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence. Springer, 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  8. L. Amgoud and H. Prade. Using arguments for making and explaining decisions. Artificial Intelligence, 173(3–4):413–436, 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  9. D. Bouyssou, D. Dubois, M. Pirlot, and H. Prade. Decision-making process — Concepts and Methods. Wiley, 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  10. A. J. García and G. R. Simari. Defeasible logic programming: An argumentative approach. Theory and practice of logic programming, 4:95–138, 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  11. M. Caminada and L. Amgoud. On the evaluation of argumentation formalisms. Artificial Intelligence, 171:286–310, 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  12. T. J. Bench-Capon. Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation, 13(3):429–448, 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Z. Assaghir, A. Napoli, M. Kaytoue, D. Dubois, and H. Prade. Numerical information fusion: Lattice of answers with supporting arguments. In ICTAI, pages 621–628, 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  14. N. Tamani, M. Croitoru, P. Buche. A viewpoint approach to structured argumentation. https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B0DPgJDRNwbLRmlqUVh4cGFrSVk/edit?usp=sharing. Technical report, INRA-SupAgro, 2013

  15. M. W. A. Caminada, W. A. Carnielli, and P. E. Dunne. Semi-stable semantics. Journal of Logic and Computation, pages 1–45, 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Y. Wu. Between argument and conclusion. Argument-based approaches to discussion. Inference and Uncertainty. PhD thesis, UniversitT du Luxembourg, 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  17. L. Amgoud. An argumentation-based model for reasoning about coalition structures. In ArgMas, pages 217–228, 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  18. L. Amgoud. Towards a formal model for task allocation via coalition formation. In AAMAS, pages 1185–1186, 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  19. G. Boella, L. van der Torre, and S. Villata. Social viewpoints for arguing about coalitions. In PRIMA, pages 66–77, 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  20. V. D. Dang and N. R. Jennings. Generating coalition structures with finite bound from the optimal guarantees. In AAMAS, pages 564–571, 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  21. S. Heras, J. Jordan, V. Botti, and V. Julian. Argue to agree: a case-based argumentation approach. International Journal of Approximate reasoning, 54:82–108, 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  22. T. L. van der Weide, F. Dignum, J.-J. C. Meyer, H. Prakken, and G. Vreeswijk. Arguing about preferences and decisions. In ArgMAS, pages 68–85, 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  23. S. Coste-Marquis, C. Devred, S. Konieczny, M.-C. Lagasquie-Schiex, and P. Marquis. On the merging of dung’s argumentation systems. Artificial Intelligence, pages 730–753, 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  24. L. Amgoud, J.-F. Bonnefon, and H. Prade. An argumentation-based approach to multiple criteria decision. In ECSQARU, pages 269–280, 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  25. C. Cayrol and M.-C. Lagasquie-Schiex. Coalition of arguments in bipolar argumentation frameworks. In 7th CMNA, pages 14–20, 2007.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/ 2007-2013) under the grant agreement nºFP7-265669-EcoBioCAP project.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. IATE, INRA-Supagro, INRIA, 2 place Pierre Viala, Montpellier, 34060, France

    Nouredine Tamani

  2. INRIA GraphIK, LIRMM, 161 rue Ada, Montpellier, 34095, France

    Madalina Croitoru

  3. IATE, CIRAD-INRA-Supagro-UM2, 2 place Pierre Viala, Montpellier, 34060, France

    Patrice Buche

Authors
  1. Nouredine Tamani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Madalina Croitoru
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Patrice Buche
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nouredine Tamani .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Computing, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, United Kingdom

    Max Bramer

  2. School of Computing, Engineering and Mathematics, University of Brighton, Brighton, West Sussex, United Kingdom

    Miltos Petridis

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this paper

Cite this paper

Tamani, N., Croitoru, M., Buche, P. (2013). A Viewpoint Approach to Structured Argumentation. In: Bramer, M., Petridis, M. (eds) Research and Development in Intelligent Systems XXX. SGAI 2013. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02621-3_19

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02621-3_19

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-02620-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-02621-3

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation