[en] Consider an argument A that is attacked by an argument B, while A is preferred to B. Existing approaches will either ignore the attack or reverse it. In this paper we introduce a new reduction of preference and attack to defeat, based on the idea that in such a case, instead of ignoring the attack, the preference is ignored. We compare this new reduction with the two existing ones using a principle-based approach, for the four Dung semantics. The principle-based or axiomatic approach is a methodology to choose an argumentation semantics for a particular application, and to guide the search for new argumentation semantics. For this analysis, we also introduce a fourth reduction, and a semantics for preference-based argumentation based on extension selection. Our classification of twenty alternatives for preference-based abstract argumentation semantics using six principles suggests that our new reduction has some advantages over the existing ones, in the sense that if the set of preferences increases, the sets of accepted arguments increase as well.
Disciplines :
Sciences informatiques
Auteur, co-auteur :
Kaci, Souhila; LIRMM
VAN DER TORRE, Leon ; University of Luxembourg > Faculty of Science, Technology and Communication (FSTC) > Computer Science and Communications Research Unit (CSC)
Villata, Serena; Université Côte d'Azur, CNRS
Co-auteurs externes :
yes
Langue du document :
Anglais
Titre :
Preference in Abstract Argumentation
Date de publication/diffusion :
2018
Nom de la manifestation :
Seventh International Conference on Computational Models of Argument
Leila Amgoud and Claudette Cayrol. Inferring from inconsistency in preference-based argumentation frameworks. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 29(2):125-169, 2002.
Leila Amgoud, Claudette Cayrol, and Daniel LeBerre. Comparing arguments using preference orderings for argument-based reasoning. In ICTAI'96, pages 400-403, 1996.
Leila Amgoud and Srdjan Vesic. Rich preference-based argumentation frameworks. Int. J. Approx. Reasoning, 55(2):585-606, 2014.
Pietro Baroni, Paul E. Dunne, and Massimiliano Giacomin. On the resolution-based family of abstract argumentation semantics and its grounded instance. Artif. Intell., 175(3-4):791-813, 2011.
Pietro Baroni and Massimiliano Giacomin. On principle-based evaluation of extension-based argumentation semantics. Artif. Intell., 171(10-15):675-700, 2007.
Pietro Baroni and Massimiliano Giacomin. Skepticism relations for comparing argumentation semantics. Int. J. Approx. Reasoning, 50(6):854-866, 2009.
Trevor J.M. Bench-Capon. Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation, 13(3):429-448, 2003.
Richard Booth, Souhila Kaci, Tjitze Rienstra, and Leendert W. N. van der Torre. A logical theory about dynamics in abstract argumentation. In SUM'13, pages 148-161, 2013.
Phan M. Dung. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in non-monotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence, 77:321-357, 1995.
Souhila Kaci, Leendert W. N. van der Torre, and Emil Weydert. Acyclic argumentation: Attack = conflict + preference. In ECAI'06, pages 725-726, 2006.
Sanjay Modgil. Reasoning about preferences in argumentation frameworks. Artificial Intelligence, 173(9-10):901-934, 2009.
Sanjay Modgil and Henry Prakken. Resolutions in structured argumentation. In COMMA'12, pages 310-321, 2012.
Tjitze Rienstra, Chiaki Sakama, and Leendert W. N. van der Torre. Persistence and monotony properties of argumentation semantics. In TAFA'15, pages 211-225, 2015.
Leendert van der Torre and Srdjan Vesic. The principle-based approach to abstract argumentation. In Pietro Baroni, Dov Gabbay, Massimiliano Giacomin, and Leendert van der Torre, editors, The Handbook of Formal Argumentation. College Publications, 2018.
