Abstract
In Weighted Abstract Argumentation Frameworks (WAAFs), weights on attacks bring more information. An advantage is the possibility to define a different notion of defence, which also checks if the weight associated with defence is compared with the weight of attacks. We study and merge together two different relaxations of classically crisp-concepts in WAAFs: one is related to a new notion of weighted defence (defence can be stronger or weaker at will), while the second one is related to how much inconsistency one is willing to tolerate inside an extension (which can be not totally conflict-free now). These two relaxations are strictly related and influence each other: allowing a small conflict may lead to have more arguments in an extension, and consequently result in a stronger or weaker defence. We model weights with a semiring structure, which can be instantiated to different metrics used in the literature (e.g., fuzzy WAAFs).
Research supported by: “VisColla” funded by Fondazione Cassa di Risparmio di Perugia, and “BitCoins” funded by Banca d’Italia and Cassa di Risparmio di Perugia.
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
Notes
- 1.
Boolean c-semirings can be used to model crisp problems and classical Argumentation [15].
- 2.
\(\mathbb S\) is complete if it is closed with respect to infinite sums, and the distributivity law holds also for an infinite number of summands [5].
- 3.
- 4.
- 5.
- 6.
- 7.
Defining a (multi-criteria) ranking is outside the scope of this work: see future work in Sect. 7.
References
Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C.: On the acceptability of arguments in preference-based argumentation. In: UAI 1998: Proceedings of the Fourteenth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 1–7. Morgan Kaufmann (1998)
Amgoud, L., Ben-Naim, J., Doder, D., Vesic, S.: Ranking arguments with compensation-based semantics. In: Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Conference, KR, pp. 12–21. AAAI Press (2016)
Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. J. Log. Comput. 13(3), 429–448 (2003)
Bertossi, L., Hunter, A., Schaub, T. (eds.): Inconsistency Tolerance. LNCS, vol. 3300. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)
Bistarelli, S., Gadducci, F.: Enhancing constraints manipulation in semiring-based formalisms. In: ECAI, Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 141, pp. 63–67. IOS Press (2006)
Bistarelli, S., Montanari, U., Rossi, F.: Semiring-based constraint satisfaction and optimization. J. ACM 44(2), 201–236 (1997)
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 2016, pp. 638–643. AAAI Press (2016)
Bistarelli, S., Santini, F.: A common computational framework forsemiring-based argumentation systems. In: Coelho, H., Studer, R., Wooldridge, M. (eds.) ECAI, Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 215, pp. 131–136. IOS Press (2010)
Bistarelli, S., Santini, F.: Conarg: a constraint-based computational framework for argumentation systems. In: IEEE 23rd International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence, ICTAI 2011, pp. 605–612. IEEE (2011)
Bistarelli, S., Santini, F.: Modeling and solving AFs with a constraint-based tool: ConArg. In: Modgil, S., Oren, N., Toni, F. (eds.) TAFA 2011. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 7132, pp. 99–116. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-29184-5_7
Blyth, T.S., Janowitz, M.F.: Residuation Theory, vol. 102. Pergamon Press, Oxford (1972)
Cayrol, C., Devred, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.C.: Acceptability semantics accounting for strength of attacks in argumentation. In: ECAI 2010 - 19th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 215, pp. 995–996. IOS Press (2010)
Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.C.: From preferences over arguments to preferences over attacks in abstract argumentation: a comparative study. In: 2013 IEEE 25th International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence, pp. 588–595. IEEE Computer Society (2013)
Coste-Marquis, S., Konieczny, S., Marquis, P., Ouali, M.A.: Weighted attacks in argumentation frameworks. In: Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference, KR 2012, Rome, Italy, June 10–14, 2012. AAAI Press (2012)
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)
Dunne, P.E., Hunter, A., McBurney, P., Parsons, S., Wooldridge, M.: Inconsistency tolerance in weighted argument systems. In: Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 851–858. IFAAMS (2009)
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)
Eğilmez, S., Martins, J., Leite, J.: Extending Social abstract argumentation with votes on attacks. In: Black, E., Modgil, S., Oren, N. (eds.) TAFA 2013. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 8306, pp. 16–31. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-54373-9_2
Erdős, P., Rényi, A.: On the evolution of random graphs. Bull. Inst. Internat. Statist 38(4), 343–347 (1961)
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)
Kaci, S., Labreuche, C.: Arguing with valued preference relations. In: Liu, W. (ed.) ECSQARU 2011. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 6717, pp. 62–73. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-22152-1_6
Leite, J., Martins, J.: Social abstract argumentation. In: IJCAI, Proceedings of the 22nd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 2287–2292. IJCAI/AAAI (2011)
Li, H., Oren, N., Norman, T.J.: Probabilistic argumentation frameworks. In: Modgil, S., Oren, N., Toni, F. (eds.) TAFA 2011. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 7132, pp. 1–16. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-29184-5_1
Martínez, D.C., García, A.J., Simari, G.R.: Anabstract argumentation framework with varied-strength attacks. In: Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference, pp. 135–144. AAAI Press (2008)
Schroeder, M., Schweimeier, R.: Fuzzy argumentation for negotiating agents. In: AAMAS, pp. 942–943. ACM (2002)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Bistarelli, S., Rossi, F., Santini, F. (2016). A Relaxation of Internal Conflict and Defence in Weighted Argumentation Frameworks. In: Michael, L., Kakas, A. (eds) Logics in Artificial Intelligence. JELIA 2016. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 10021. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-48758-8_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-48758-8_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-48757-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-48758-8
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)