Abstract
Arguments in argumentation-based query-answering systems can be associated with a set of evidence required for their construction. This evidence might have to be retrieved from external sources such as databases or the web, and each attempt of retrieving a piece of evidence comes with an associated cost. Moreover, a piece of evidence may be available at one moment but not at others, and this is not known beforehand. As a result, the set of active arguments (whose entire set of evidence is available) that can be used by the argumentation machinery of the system may vary from one scenario to another. In this work we propose a heuristic pruning technique for building dialectical trees in argumentation-based query-answering systems, with the aim of minimizing the cost of retrieving the pieces of evidence associated with the arguments that need to be accounted for in the reasoning process.
Funded by PGI-UNS (grants 24/N046 and 24/ZN32) and EU H2020 research and innovation programme (Marie Sklodowska-Curie grant agreement No. 69074: MIREL project).
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.
We consider that the root of a tree is in level 0, its children are in level 1, and so on.
References
International Competition on Computational Models of Argumentation. http://argumentationcompetition.org
Al-Abdulkarim, L., Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Abstract dialectical frameworks for legal reasoning. In: Proceedings of JURIX, pp. 61–70 (2014)
Alfano, G., Greco, S., Parisi, F.: Efficient computation of extensions for dynamic abstract argumentation frameworks: an incremental approach. In: Proceedings of IJCAI, pp. 49–55 (2017)
Baroni, P., Giacomin, M., Liao, B.: On topology-related properties of abstract argumentation semantics. A correction and extension to dynamics of argumentation systems: a division-based method. Artif. Intell. 212, 104–115 (2014)
Bedi, P., Vashisth, P.B.: Empowering recommender systems using trust and argumentation. Inf. Sci. 279, 569–586 (2014)
Besnard, P., García, A.J., Hunter, A., Modgil, S., Prakken, H., Simari, G.R., Toni, F.: Introduction to structured argumentation. Argum. Comput. 5(1), 1–4 (2014)
Besnard, P., Hunter, A.: A logic-based theory of deductive arguments. Artif. Intell. 128(1–2), 203–235 (2001)
Black, E., Hunter, A.: An inquiry dialogue system. Auton. Agent. Multi-Agent Syst. 19(2), 173–209 (2009)
Briguez, C.E., Budán, M.C.D., Deagustini, C.A.D., Maguitman, A.G., Capobianco, M., Simari, G.R.: Argument-based mixed recommenders and their application to movie suggestion. Expert Syst. Appl. 41(14), 6467–6482 (2014)
Capobianco, M., Chesñevar, C.I., Simari, G.R.: Argumentation and the dynamics of warranted beliefs in changing environments. Auton. Agent. Multi-Agent Syst. 11(2), 127–151 (2005)
Chesñevar, C.I., Simari, G.R., García, A.J.: Pruning search space in defeasible argumentation. In: Proceedings of ATAI, pp. 46–55 (2000)
Deagustini, C.A.D., Dalibón, S.E.F., Gottifredi, S., Falappa, M.A., Chesñevar, C.I., Simari, G.R.: Defeasible argumentation over relational databases. Argum. Comput. 8(1), 35–59 (2017)
Doutre, S., Mailly, J.: Constraints and changes: a survey of abstract argumentation dynamics. Argum. Comput. 9(3), 223–248 (2018). https://doi.org/10.3233/AAC-180425
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), 321–358 (1995)
Ferretti, E., Tamargo, L.H., García, A.J., Errecalde, M.L., Simari, G.R.: An approach to decision making based on dynamic argumentation systems. Artif. Intell. 242, 107–131 (2017)
García, A.J., Simari, G.R.: Defeasible logic programming: an argumentative approach. TPLP 4(1–2), 95–138 (2004)
Gómez, S.A., Goron, A., Groza, A., Letia, I.A.: Assuring safety in air traffic control systems with argumentation and model checking. Expert Syst. Appl. 44, 367–385 (2016)
Gottifredi, S., Rotstein, N.D., García, A.J., Simari, G.R.: Using argument strength for building dialectical bonsai. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 69(1), 103–129 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10472-013-9338-x
Liao, B., Jin, L., Koons, R.C.: Dynamics of argumentation systems: a division-based method. Artif. Intell. 175(11), 1790–1814 (2011)
Lippi, M., Torroni, P.: Argumentation mining: state of the art and emerging trends. ACM Trans. Internet Technol. 16(2), 10:1–10:25 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1145/2850417
Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: Law and logic: a review from an argumentation perspective. Artif. Intell. 227, 214–245 (2015)
Rotstein, N.D., Moguillansky, M.O., García, A.J., Simari, G.R.: A dynamic argumentation framework. In: Proceedings of COMMA, pp. 427–438 (2010)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Cohen, A., Gottifredi, S., García, A.J. (2019). A Heuristic Pruning Technique for Dialectical Trees on Argumentation-Based Query-Answering Systems. In: Cuzzocrea, A., Greco, S., Larsen, H., Saccà, D., Andreasen, T., Christiansen, H. (eds) Flexible Query Answering Systems. FQAS 2019. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 11529. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-27629-4_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-27629-4_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-27628-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-27629-4
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)