Preference-based argumentation: Arguments supporting multiple values
نویسندگان
چکیده
In preference-based argumentation theory, an argument may be preferred to another one when, for example, it is more specific, its beliefs have a higher probability or certainty, or it promotes a higher value. In this paper we generalize Bench-Capon’s value-based argumentation theory such that arguments can promote multiple values, and preferences among values or arguments can be specified in various ways. We assume in addition that there is default knowledge about the preferences over the arguments, and we use an algorithm to derive the most likely preference order. In particular, we show how to use non-monotonic preference reasoning to compute preferences among arguments, and subsequently the acceptable arguments, from preferences among values. We show also how the preference ordering can be used to optimize the algorithm to construct the grounded extension by proceeding from most to least preferred arguments.
منابع مشابه
Preference Reasoning for Argumentation: Non-monotonicity and Algorithms
In this paper we are interested in the role of preferences in argumentation theory. To promote a higher impact of preference reasoning in argumentation, we introduce a novel preference-based argumentation theory. Using non-monotonic preference reasoning we derive a Dung-style attack relation from a preference specification together with a defeat relation. In particular, our theory uses efficien...
متن کاملOn the Acceptability of Arguments in Preference-based Argumentation
Argumentation is a promising model for reasoning with uncertain and inconsistent knowledge. The key concept of acceptability enables to differentiate arguments and defeaters: The certainty of a proposition can then be evaluated through the most acceptable arguments for that proposition. In this paper, we investigate different complementary points of view: an acceptability based on the existence...
متن کاملAcyclic Argumentation: Attack = Conflict + Preference
In this paper we study the fragment of Dung’s argumentation theory in which the strict attack relation is acyclic. We show that every attack relation satisfying a particular property can be represented by a symmetric conflict relation and a transitive preference relation in the following way. We define an instance of Dung’s abstract argumentation theory, in which ‘argument A attacks argument B’...
متن کاملArgumentation-Based Reasoning Using Preferences over Sources of Information: (Extended Abstract)
Argumentation-based reasoning plays an important role in agent reasoning and communication. In this work, we extend an argumentation-based reasoning mechanism to take into account preferences over arguments supporting contrary conclusions. Such preferences come from elements that are present or can be more easily obtained in the context of practical multi-agent programming platforms, such as mu...
متن کاملTowards a Unified Model of Preference-Based Argumentation
Argumentation is a reasoning model based on the construction and the evaluation of arguments. In his seminal paper, Dung has proposed the most abstract argumentation framework. In that framework, arguments are assumed to have the same strength. This assumption is unfortunately strong and often unsatisfied. Consequently, three extensions of the framework have been proposed in the literature. The...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
برای دانلود متن کامل این مقاله و بیش از 32 میلیون مقاله دیگر ابتدا ثبت نام کنید
ثبت ناماگر عضو سایت هستید لطفا وارد حساب کاربری خود شوید
ورودعنوان ژورنال:
- Int. J. Approx. Reasoning
دوره 48 شماره
صفحات -
تاریخ انتشار 2008