Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Preferences in Argumentation Theory

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Working with Preferences: Less Is More

Part of the book series: Cognitive Technologies ((COGTECH))

  • 704 Accesses

Abstract

Argumentation theory is a reasoning process based on constructing arguments, determining conflicts between arguments and determining acceptable arguments. Dung’s argumentation framework is an abstract framework based on a set of arguments and a binary defeat relation defined over the set [12]. The output of an argumentation framework is a multi-set of acceptable arguments called acceptable extensions. An extension is a set of arguments which can be used together in order to support a decision, a viewpoint, etc. Thus, it should satisfy two basic requirements: (1) an extension is conflict-free, i.e., no defeat relation holds between arguments in the extension and (2) an extension defends its arguments from any external attack.

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 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover 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

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Amgoud, L., Cayrol C.: A reasoning model based on the production of acceptable arguments. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 34, 197–216 (2002)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  2. Amgoud, L., Cayrol C.: Inferring from inconsistency in preference-based argumentation frameworks. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 29(2), 125–169 (2002)

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  3. Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C., LeBerre, D.: Comparing arguments using preference orderings for argument-based reasoning. In: Manaris, B., Marquis, P. (eds.), 8th International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence, pp. 400-403. IEEE, (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Amgoud, L., Dimopoulos, Y., Moraitis, P.: A unified and general framework for argumentation-based negotiation. In: Durfee, E.H., Yokoo, M., Huhns, M.N., Sheory, O. (eds.), 6th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 158. IFAAMAS, (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Amgoud, L., Kaci, S.: An argumentation framework for merging conflicting knowledge bases. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 45(2), 321–340 (2007)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  7. Amgoud, L., Vesic, S.: Repairing preference-based argumentation frameworks. In: Boutilier, G. (eds.), 21st International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 665-670. (2009)

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  9. Benferhat, S., Dubois, D., Prade, H.: Argumentative inference in uncertain and inconsistent knowledge bases. In: Heckerman, D., Mamdani, E.H. (eds.), 9th Annual Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 411-419. Morgan Kaufmann, (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Benferhat, S., Dubois, D., Prade, H.: Some syntactic approaches to the handling of inconsistent knowledge bases: A comparative study Part 2: The prioritized case. Logic at work 24, 473–511 (1998)

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  11. Dimopoulos, Y., Moraitis, P., Amgoud, L.: Extending argumentation to make good decisions. In: Rossi, F., Tsouki`as, A. (eds.), 1st International Conference on Algorithmic Decision Theory, pp. 225-236. Springer, (2009)

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  13. Dunne, P.E., Hunter, A., McBurney, P., Parsons, S., Wooldridge, M.: Inconsistency tolerance in weighted argument systems. In: Sierra, C., Castelfranchi, C., Decker, K.S., Sichman, J.S. (eds.), 8th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 851-858. IFAAMAS, (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Kaci, S.: Refined preference-based argumentation frameworks. In: Baroni, P., Giacomin, M., Simari, G. (eds.), 3rd International Conference on Computational Models of Argument, pp. 299-310. IOP Press, (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Kaci, S., Labreuche, C.: Argumentation framework with fuzzy preference relations. In: H¨ullermeier, E., Kruse, R., Hoffmann, F. (eds.), 13th Conference on Information Processing and Management of Uncertainty in Knowledge-Based Systems Conference, pp. 554-563. Springer, (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Kaci, S., Labreuche, C.: Preference-based argumentation framework with varied-preference intensity. In: Coelho, H., Studer, R., Wooldridge, M. (eds.), 19th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 1003-1004. IOP Press, (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Kaci, S., van der Torre, L.: Preference-based argumentation: Arguments supporting multiple values. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 48, 730–751 (2008)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  18. Kaci, S., Van der Torre, L., Weydert, E.: On the acceptability of incompatible arguments. In: Mellouli, K. (eds.), 9th European Conferences on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty, pp. 247-258. Springer, (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Kaci, S., Van der Torre, L., Weydert, E.: Acyclic argumentation: Attack = conflict+ preference. In: Brewka, G., Coradeschi, S., Perini, A., Traverso, P. (eds.), 17th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 725-726. IOS Press, (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Mart´ınez, D.C., Garc´ıa, A.J., Simari, G.R.: An abstract argumentation framework with variedstrength attacks. In: Brewka, G., Lang, J. (eds.), 11th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pp. 135-144. AAAI Press, (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Modgil, S.: Reasoning about preferences in argumentation frameworks. Artificial Intelligence 173(9-10), 901–934 (2009)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  22. Perelman, C.: Justice, Law and Argument. Reidel, Dordrecht (1980)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Prakken, H.: Coherence and flexibility in dialogue games for argumentation. Journal of Logic and Computation 15(6), 1009–1040 (2005)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  24. Simari, G.R., Loui, R.P.: A mathematical treatment of defeasible reasoning and its implementation. Artificial Intelligence 53, 125–157 (1992)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  25. Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: Argument-based extended logic programming with defeasible priorities. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 7, 25–75 (1997)

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  26. Stolzenburg, F., Garc´ıa, A.J., Ches˜nevar, C.I., Simari, G.R.: Computing generalized specificity. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 13(1), 87–113 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. LIRMM (Laboratoire d’Informatique, de Robotique et de Microélectronique de Montpellier), 161 rue ADA, F34392, Montpellier Cedex 5, France

    Prof. Souhila Kaci

Authors
  1. Prof. Souhila Kaci
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Souhila Kaci .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Kaci, S. (2011). Preferences in Argumentation Theory. In: Working with Preferences: Less Is More. Cognitive Technologies. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-17280-9_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-17280-9_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-17279-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-17280-9

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation