[en] In the theory of abstract argumentation, the acceptance status of arguments is normally determined for the complete set of arguments at once, under a single semantics. However, this is not always desired. In this paper, we extend the notion of an argumentation framework to a multi-sorted argumentation framework, and we motivate this extension using an example which considers practical and epistemic arguments. In a multi-sorted argumentation framework, the arguments are partitioned into a number of cells, where each cell is associated with a semantics under which its arguments are evaluated. We prove the properties of the proposed framework, and we demonstrate our theory with a number of examples. Finally, we relate our theory to the theory of modal fibring of argumentation networks.
Disciplines :
Sciences informatiques
Identifiants :
UNILU:UL-CONFERENCE-2011-344
Auteur, co-auteur :
RIENSTRA, Tjitze ; University of Luxembourg > Faculty of Science, Technology and Communication (FSTC) > Computer Science and Communications Research Unit (CSC)
Perotti, Alan
Villata, Serena
VAN DER TORRE, Leon ; University of Luxembourg > Faculty of Science, Technology and Communication (FSTC) > Computer Science and Communications Research Unit (CSC)
Co-auteurs externes :
yes
Langue du document :
Anglais
Titre :
Multi-sorted Argumentation
Date de publication/diffusion :
16 juillet 2011
Nom de la manifestation :
Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on the Theory and Applications of Formal Argumentation (TAFA 2011)
Lieu de la manifestation :
Barchelona, Espagne
Date de la manifestation :
2011
Manifestation à portée :
International
Titre du périodique :
Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on the Theory and Applications of Formal Argumentation (TAFA 2011)
Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C.: On the acceptability of arguments in preference-based argumentation. In: Cooper, G.F., Moral, S. (eds.) UAI 1998: Proceedings of the Fourteenth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 1-7. Morgan Kaufmann (1998)
Amgoud, L., Prade, H.: Handling threats, rewards, and explanatory arguments in a unified setting. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 20(12), 1195-1218 (2005)
Baroni, P., Giacomin, M., Guida, G.: SCC-recursiveness: a general schema for argumentation semantics. Artificial Intelligence 168(1-2), 162-210 (2005)
Barringer, H., Gabbay, D.M.: Modal and Temporal Argumentation Networks. In: Manna, Z., Peled, D.A. (eds.) Time for Verification. LNCS, vol. 6200, pp. 1-25. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)
Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Value-based argumentation frameworks. In: Benferhat, S., Giunchiglia, E. (eds.) NMR, pp. 443-454 (2002)
Brewka, G., Eiter, T.: Argumentation Context Systems: A Framework for Abstract Group Argumentation. In: Erdem, E., Lin, F., Schaub, T. (eds.) LPNMR 2009. LNCS, vol. 5753, pp. 44-57. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)
Caminada, M.: Semi-stable semantics. In: Computational Models of Argument; Proceedings of COMMA, pp. 121-130 (2006)
Caminada, M.: On the Issue of Reinstatement in Argumentation. In: Fisher, M., van der Hoek, W., Konev, B., Lisitsa, A. (eds.) JELIA 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4160, pp. 111-123. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)
Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in non-monotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif. Intell. 77(2), 321-358 (1995)
Gabbay, D.M.: Fibring argumentation frames. Studia Logica 93(2-3), 231-295 (2009)
Modgil, S., Caminada, M.: Proof theories and algorithms for abstract argumentation frameworks. In: Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 105-129 (2009)
Prakken, H.: Combining sceptical epistemic reasoning with credulous practical reasoning. In: Dunne, P.E., Bench-Capon, T.J.M. (eds.) COMMA. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 144, pp. 311-322. IOS Press (2006)
Rotstein, N.D., García, A.J., Simari, G.R.: Reasoning from desires to intentions: A dialectical framework. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Second AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2007), pp. 136-141. AAAI Press (2007)
