Abstract
In a previous work we defined a recursive semantics for reasoning about which arguments should be warranted when extending Defeasible Argumentation with defeasibility levels for arguments. Our approach is based on a general notion of collective conflict among arguments and on the fact that if an argument is warranted it must be that all its sub-arguments also are warranted. An output of a program is a pair consisting of a set of warranted and a set of blocked arguments with maximum strength. Arguments that are neither warranted nor blocked correspond to rejected arguments. On this recursive semantics a program may have multiple outputs in case of circular definitions of conflicts among arguments and for these circular definitions of conflicts we define what output, called maximal ideal output, should be considered based on the claim that if an argument is excluded from an output, then all the arguments built on top of it should also be excluded from that output. In this paper we show a web based system we have designed and implemented to compute the output for programs with single and multiple outputs. For programs with multiple outputs the system also computes the maximal ideal output. An interesting feature of the system is that it provides not only both sets of warranted an blocked arguments with maximum strength but also useful information that allows to better understand why an argument is either warranted, blocked or rejected.
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
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Alsinet, T., Béjar, R., Godo, L.: A characterization of collective conflict for defeasible argumentation. In: Proceedings of COMMA 2010. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 216, pp. 27–38. IOS Press (2010)
Alsinet, T., Béjar, R., Godo, L., Guitart, F.: Maximal ideal recursive semantics for defeasible argumentation. In: Benferhat, S., Grant, J. (eds.) SUM 2011. LNCS, vol. 6929, pp. 96–109. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)
Alsinet, T., Béjar, R., Godo, L., Guitart, F.: Using answer set programming for an scalable implementation of defeasible argumentation. In: ICTAI, pp. 1016–1021 (2012)
Alsinet, T., Béjar, R., Godo, L., Guitart, F.: On the implementation of a multiple outputs algorithm for defeasible argumentation. In: Proceedings of SUM 2013 (in press, 2013)
Alsinet, T., Béjar, R., Godo, L., Guitart, F.: RP-DeLP: A weighted defeasible argumentation framework based on a recursive semantics. Journal of Logic and Computation: Special Issue on Loops in Argumentation (submitted)
Amgoud, L.: Postulates for logic-based argumentation systems. In: Proceedings of the ECAI 2012 Workshop WL4AI, pp. 59–67 (2012)
Bench-Capon, T.J.M., Dunne, P.E.: Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Artif. Intell. 171(10-15), 619–641 (2007)
Besnard, P., Hunter, A.: Elements of Argumentation. The MIT Press (2008)
Bouyias, Y.N., Demetriadis, S.N., Tsoukalas, I.A.: iargue: A web-based argumentation system supporting collaboration scripts with adaptable fading. In: Proceedings of ICALT 2008, pp. 477–479 (2008)
Cartwright, D., Atkinson, K.: Using computational argumentation to support e-participation. IEEE Intelligent Systems 24(5), 42–52 (2009)
Minh Dung, P., Mancarella, P., Toni, F.: A dialectic procedure for sceptical, assumption-based argumentation. In: Proceedings of COMMA 2008. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 172, pp. 145–156. IOS Press (2006)
Minh Dung, P., Mancarella, P., Toni, F.: Computing ideal sceptical argumentation. Artif. Intell. 171(10-15), 642–674 (2007)
Eén, N., Sörensson, N.: An extensible SAT-solver. In: Giunchiglia, E., Tacchella, A. (eds.) SAT 2003. LNCS, vol. 2919, pp. 502–518. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)
García, A., Simari, G.: Defeasible Logic Programming: An Argumentative Approach. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 4(1), 95–138 (2004)
García, A.J., Rotstein, N.D., Tucat, M., Simari, G.R.: An argumentative reasoning service for deliberative agents. In: Zhang, Z., Siekmann, J.H. (eds.) KSEM 2007. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4798, pp. 128–139. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)
Gebser, M., Kaminski, R., Kaufmann, B., Ostrowski, M., Schaub, T., Schneider, M.: Potassco: The Potsdam answer set solving collection. AI Commun. 24(2), 107–124 (2011)
Governatori, G., Maher, M.J., Antoniou, G., Billington, D.: Argumentation semantics for defeasible logic. J. Log. Comput. 14(5), 675–702 (2004)
Pollock, J.L.: A recursive semantics for defeasible reasoning. In: Rahwan, I., Simari, G.R. (eds.) Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, ch. 9, pp. 173–198. Springer (2009)
Prakken, H., Vreeswijk, G.: Logical Systems for Defeasible Argumentation. In: Gabbay, D., Guenther, F. (eds.) Handbook of Phil. Logic, pp. 219–318. Kluwer (2002)
Rahwan, I., Simari, G.R. (eds.): Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence. Springer (2009)
Schlesinger, F., Errecalde, M., Aguirre, G.: An approach to integrate web services and argumentation into a BDI system (extended abstract). In: van der Hoek, Kaminka, Lespérance, Luck, Sen (eds.) Proceedings of AAMAS 2010, pp. 1371–1372 (2010)
Tsai, C.Y., Jack, B.M., Huang, T.C., Yang, J.T.: Using the cognitive apprenticeship web-based argumentation system to improve argumentation instruction. Journal of Science Education and Technology 21, 476–486 (2012)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Teresa, A., Ramón, B., Guitart, F., Godo, L. (2013). Web Based System for Weighted Defeasible Argumentation. In: Leite, J., Son, T.C., Torroni, P., van der Torre, L., Woltran, S. (eds) Computational Logic in Multi-Agent Systems. CLIMA 2013. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 8143. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40624-9_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40624-9_10
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-40623-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-40624-9
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)