Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Graded Justification of Arguments via Internal and External Endogenous Features

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Scalable Uncertainty Management (SUM 2016)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 9858))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

We propose a framework to compute a graded justification of arguments and a ranking of them. The framework is based on two different features that can be directly extracted from an Argumentation Framework (endogenously). Hence, the suggested approach does not consider any side-information on arguments or attacks, e.g., in the form of preferences. The two features are derived from (i) allowing a number of attacks inside an extension, and (ii) computing how well such an extension can defend its arguments (the difference between the number of attacks and counter-attacks). The ranking of arguments is provided by computing their justification status w.r.t the semantics redefined through i and ii.

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

Access this chapter

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 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
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

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. 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)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  2. Baroni, P., Caminada, M., Giacomin, M.: An introduction to argumentation semantics. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 26(4), 365–410 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Besnard, P., Hunter, A.: A logic-based theory of deductive arguments. Artif. Intell. 128(1–2), 203–235 (2001)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Bistarelli, S., Rossi, F., Santini, F.: A collective defence against grouped attacks for weighted abstract argumentation frameworks. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth International Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society Conference, FLAIRS, pp. 638–643. AAAI Press (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bistarelli, S., Santini, F.: A common computational framework for semiring-based argumentation systems. In: 19th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, ECAI 2010. FAIA, vol. 215, pp. 131–136. IOS Press (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bistarelli, S., Santini, F.: Coalitions of arguments: an approach with constraint programming. Fundam. Inform. 124(4), 383–401 (2013)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Bonzon, E., Delobelle, J., Konieczny, S., Maudet, N.: A comparative study of ranking-based semantics for abstract argumentation. In: Proceedings of the Thirtieth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 914–920. AAAI Press (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.: Graduality in argumentation. J. Artif. Intell. Res. (JAIR) 23, 245–297 (2005)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif. Intell. 77(2), 321–357 (1995)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. Dunne, P.E., Hunter, A., McBurney, P., Parsons, S., Wooldridge, M.: Weighted argument systems: basic definitions, algorithms, and complexity results. Artif. Intell. 175(2), 457–486 (2011)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. 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)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  12. Grossi, D., Modgil, S.: On the graded acceptability of arguments. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI, pp. 868–874. AAAI Press (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Konieczny, S., Marquis, P., Vesic, S.: On supported inference and extension selection in abstract argumentation frameworks. In: Destercke, S., Denoeux, T. (eds.) Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty. LNCS, vol. 9161, pp. 49–59. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. Pollock, J.L.: How to reason defeasibly. Artif. Intell. 57(1), 1–42 (1992)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Prakken, H., Vreeswijk, G.: Logics for defeasible argumentation. In: Gabbay, D.M., Guenthner, F. (eds.) Handbook of Philosophical Logic, vol. 4, pp. 219–318. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Wu, Y., Caminada, M.: A labelling-based justification status of arguments. Stud. Logic 3(4), 12–29 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dipartimento di Matematica e Informatica, University of Perugia, Perugia, Italy

    Francesco Santini

Authors
  1. Francesco Santini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Francesco Santini .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Cardiff University , Cardiff, United Kingdom

    Steven Schockaert

  2. Télécom ParisTech , Paris, Paris, France

    Pierre Senellart

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this paper

Cite this paper

Santini, F. (2016). Graded Justification of Arguments via Internal and External Endogenous Features. In: Schockaert, S., Senellart, P. (eds) Scalable Uncertainty Management. SUM 2016. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 9858. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45856-4_26

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45856-4_26

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-45855-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-45856-4

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation