Weighted Attacks in Argumentation Frameworks
نویسندگان
چکیده
Recently, (Dunne et al. 2009; 2011) have suggested to weight attacks within Dung’s abstract argumentation frameworks, and introduced the concept of WAF (Weighted Argumentation Framework). However, they use WAFs in a very specific way for relaxing attacks. The aim of this paper is to explore ways to take advantage of attacks weights within an argumentation process. Two different approaches are considered: The first one extends the proposal by (Dunne et al. 2011) and accounts for other aggregation functions than sum in the objective of relaxing attacks. The second one shows how weights can be exploited to strengthen the usual notion of defence, leading to new concepts of extensions.
منابع مشابه
Selecting Extensions in Weighted Argumentation Frameworks
Recently, Dunne et al. [9,10] introduced the concept of WAF (Weighted Argumentation Framework). Such frameworks extend standard Dung’s ones for abstract argumentation by associating weights with attacks. In the WAF setting, weights are used for relaxing extensions, which proves useful when there are too few extensions. In this paper, we exploit weights in a different perspective. We show how to...
متن کاملVoronoi diagrams for automated argumentations among Internet of Things
This work introduces a novel approach to display and arbitration of machine to machine abstract argumentation for Internet of Things devices, which does not require human intervention. The proposed model is a hybrid between weighted Dung style argumentation frameworks and competitive facility placement Voronoi games. It can accommodate weights of arguments and attack relations to depict weighte...
متن کاملReasoning about Preferences in Structured Extended Argumentation Frameworks
This paper combines two recent extensions of Dung’s abstract argumentation frameworks in order to define an abstract formalism for reasoning about preferences in structured argumentation frameworks. First, extended argumentation frameworks extend Dung frameworks with attacks on attacks, thus providing an abstract dialectical semantics that accommodates argumentation-based reasoning about prefer...
متن کاملValid Attacks in Argumentation Frameworks with Recursive Attacks
The purpose of this work is to study a generalisation of Dung’s abstract argumentation frameworks that allows representing recursive attacks, that is, a class of attacks whose targets are other attacks. We do this by developing a theory of argumentation where the classic role of attacks in defeating arguments is replaced by a subset of them, which is extension dependent and which, intuitively, ...
متن کاملConArg: a Tool to Solve (Weighted) Abstract Argumentation Frameworks with (Soft) Constraints
ConArg is a Constraint Programming-based tool that can be used to model and solve different problems related to Abstract Argumentation Frameworks (AFs). To implement this tool we have used JaCoP, a Java library that provides the user with a Finite Domain Constraint Programming paradigm. ConArg is able to randomly generate networks with small-world properties in order to find conflict-free, admi...
متن کامل