Two Roles of Preferences in Argumentation Frameworks
نویسندگان
چکیده
In this paper, we show that preferences intervene twice in argumentation frameworks: i) to compute standard solutions (i.e. extensions), and ii) to refine those solutions (i.e. to return only the preferred extensions). The two roles are independent and obey to distinct postulates. After introducing and studying the postulates, we provide an example of a formal framework which models the two roles and verifies all the proposed postulates.
منابع مشابه
Reasoning 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 کاملRich preference-based argumentation frameworks
An argumentation framework is seen as a directed graph whose nodes are arguments and arcs are attacks between the arguments. Acceptable sets of arguments, called extensions, are computed using a semantics. Existing semantics are solely based on the attacks and do not take into account other important criteria like the intrinsic strengths of arguments. The contribution of this paper is three fol...
متن کاملPreference-based argumentation frameworks: application in decision making and negotiation. (Les systèmes d'argumentation basés sur les préférences : application à la décision et à la négociation)
Argumentation is a promising approach for reasoning with uncertain or incoherent knowledge or more generally with common sense knowledge. It consists of constructing arguments and counter-arguments, comparing the different arguments and selecting the most acceptable among them. This thesis contains three main parts. The first one concerns the notion of equivalence between two argumentation fram...
متن کاملArchive TOULOUSE Archive Ouverte ( OATAO )
An argumentation framework is seen as a directed graph whose nodes are arguments and arcs are attacks between the arguments. Acceptable sets of arguments, called extensions, are computed using a semantics. Existing semantics are solely based on the attacks and do not take into account other important criteria like the intrinsic strengths of arguments. The contribution of this paper is three fol...
متن کاملReduction-Based Approaches to Implement Modgil's Extended Argumentation Frameworks
This paper reconsiders Modgil’s Extended Argumentation Frameworks (EAFs) that extend Dung’s abstract argumentation frameworks by attacks on attacks. This allows to encode preferences directly in the framework and thus also to reason about the preferences themselves. As a first step to reduction-based approaches to implement EAFs, we give an alternative (but equivalent) characterization of accep...
متن کامل