nach oben

Erschienen in:

2016 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

Argumentation-Based Reasoning with Preferences

verfasst von : Kristijonas Čyras

Erschienen in: Highlights of Practical Applications of Scalable Multi-Agent Systems. The PAAMS Collection

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

One of the main objectives of AI is modelling human reasoning. Since preference information is an indispensable component of common-sense reasoning, the two should be studied in tandem. Argumentation is an established branch of AI dedicated to this task. In this paper, we study how argumentation with preferences models human intuition behind a particular decision making scenario concerning reasoning with rules and preferences. To this end, we present an example of a common-sense reasoning problem complemented with a survey of decisions made by human respondents. The survey reveals an answer that contrasts with solutions offered by various argumentation formalisms. We argue that our results call for advancements of approaches to argumentation with preferences as well as for examination of the type of problems of reasoning with preferences put forward in this paper. Our work contributes to the line of research on preference handling in argumentation, and it also enriches the discussions on the increasingly important topic of preference treatment in AI at large.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Vorheriges Kapitel An Immune Multi-agent Based Decision Support System for the Control of Public Transportation Systems

Nächstes Kapitel Almost Fair: Conjoint Measurement Theory and Score-Based Bargaining Solutions

Since all three cakes are wanted, condition (a) simply indicates that the first round decision is pivotal and involves basically only one rule expressed in condition (b).

The survey results can be found at https://www.surveymonkey.com/results/SM-GLNNBZ8Q/. We have surveyed PhD students at the Department of Computing, Imperial College London. Invitations to take the survey were distributed by email via the Department’s PhD students’ mailing list. 79 responses were obtained in a single day. We do not claim any statistically significant findings.

By definition, there are infinitely many arguments, but it suffices to consider only a finite number of them, as they represent the essential information; see [9] for details.

Two types of rules are commonly used in argumentation: strict rules, whose consequent necessarily follows from the antecedent; and defeasible rules, whose consequent normally (e.g. unless there are exceptions to the rule) follows from the antecedent.

For \(\varphi \in \mathcal {L}\), its complement \(-\varphi \) is: \(\lnot \psi \) if \(\varphi = \psi \); and \(\psi \) if \(\varphi = \lnot \psi \).

For simplicity, we omit the precise definitions of the consequence operator as well as the relation \(\sqsubseteq \); see [35, 37] for details.

With the attack relation specified next, this simplification is meant purely to make the argument framework easier to read.

Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C.: A reasoning model based on the production of acceptable arguments. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 34(1–3), 197–215 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefMATH

Amgoud, L., Prade, H.: Using arguments for making and explaining decisions. Artif. Intell. 173(3–4), 413–436 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefMATH

Amgoud, L., Vesic, S.: Rich preference-based argumentation frameworks. Int. J. Approximate Reasoning 55(2), 585–606 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefMATH

Baroni, P., Caminada, M., Giacomin, M.: An introduction to argumentation semantics. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 26(04), 365–410 (2011)CrossRef

Baroni, P., Cerutti, F., Giacomin, M., Guida, G.: AFRA: argumentation framework with recursive attacks. Int. J. Approximate Reasoning 52(1), 19–37 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefMATH

Bench-Capon, T.: Persuasion in practical argument using value based argumentation frameworks. J. Logic Comput. 13(3), 429–448 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefMATH

Besnard, P., García, A., Hunter, A., Modgil, S., Prakken, H., Simari, G., Toni, F.: Introduction to structured argumentation. Argument Computat. 5(1), 1–4 (2014)CrossRef

Besnard, P., Hunter, A.: A logic-based theory of deductive arguments. Artif. Intell. 128(1–2), 203–235 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefMATH

Besnard, P., Hunter, A.: Constructing argument graphs with deductive arguments: a tutorial. Argument Computat. 5(1), 5–30 (2014)CrossRef

10.

Bondarenko, A., Dung, P.M., Kowalski, R., Toni, F.: An abstract, argumentation-theoretic approach to default reasoning. Artif. Intell. 93(97), 63–101 (1997)MathSciNetCrossRefMATH

11.

Brewka, G., Eiter, T.: Preferred answer sets for extended logic programs. Artif. Intell. 109(1–2), 297–356 (1999)MathSciNetCrossRefMATH

12.

Brewka, G., Ellmauthaler, S., Strass, H., Wallner, J., Woltran, S.: Abstract dialectical frameworks revisited. In: Rossi, F. (ed.) Proceedings of the 23rd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), pp. 803–809. IJCAI/AAAI, Beijing (2013)

13.

Brewka, G., Truszczynski, M., Niemelä, I.: Preferences and nonmonotonic reasoning. AI Mag. 29(4), 69–78 (2008)

14.

Caminada, M., Amgoud, L.: On the evaluation of argumentation formalisms. Artif. Intell. 171(5–6), 286–310 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefMATH

15.

Carrera, Á., Iglesias, C.: A systematic review of argumentation techniques for multi-agent systems research. Artif. Intell. Rev. 44(4), 509–535 (2015)CrossRef

16.

Clark, K.L.: Negation as failure. In: Gallaire, H., Minker, J. (eds.) Logic and Data Bases, pp. 293–322. Springer, Heidelberg (1978)CrossRef

17.

Čyras, K., Toni, F.: ABA+: assumption-based argumentation with preferences. In: Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Conference (KR), to appear. Cape Town (2016)

18.

Delgrande, J., Schaub, T., Tompits, H., Wang, K.: A classification and survey of preference handling approaches in nonmonotonic reasoning. Comput. Intell. 20(2), 308–334 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRef

19.

Domshlak, C., Hüllermeier, E., Kaci, S., Prade, H.: Preferences in ai: an overview. Artif. Intell. 175(7–8), 1037–1052 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRef

20.

Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif. Intell. 77, 321–357 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefMATH

21.

Dung, P.M.: An axiomatic Analysis of Structured Argumentation with Priorities. Artif. Intell. 231, 107–150 (2016)MathSciNetCrossRefMATH

22.

Dunne, P., Hunter, A., McBurney, P., Parsons, S., Wooldridge, M.: Weighted argument systems: basic definitions, algorithms, and complexity results. Artif. Intell. 175(2), 457–486 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefMATH

23.

García, A., Simari, G.: Defeasible logic programming: an argumentative approach. Theor. Pract. Logic Program. 4(2), 95–138 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefMATH

24.

García, A., Simari, G.: Defeasible logic programming: DeLP-servers, contextual queries, and explanations for answers. Argument Comput. 5(1), 63–88 (2014)CrossRef

25.

Gorogiannis, N., Hunter, A.: Instantiating abstract argumentation with classical logic arguments: postulates and properties. Artif. Intell. 175(9–10), 1479–1497 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefMATH

26.

Kaci, S.: Working with Preferences. Less is More. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefMATH

27.

Kaci, S., van der Torre, L.: Preference-based argumentation: arguments supporting multiple values. Int. J. Approximate Reasoning 48(3), 730–751 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefMATH

28.

Kahneman, D., Tversky, A.: Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47(2), 263–291 (1979)CrossRefMATH

29.

Kakas, A., Moraitis, P.: Argumentation based decision making for autonomous agents. In: The Second International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS), pp. 883–890. ACM Press, Melbourne (2003)

30.

Modgil, S.: Reasoning about preferences in argumentation frameworks. Artif. Intell. 173(9–10), 901–934 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefMATH

31.

Modgil, S., Prakken, H.: Reasoning about preferences in structured extended argumentation frameworks. Front. Artif. Intell. Appl. 216(9–10), 347–358 (2010)

32.

Modgil, S., Prakken, H.: A general account of argumentation with preferences. Artif. Intell. 195, 361–397 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefMATH

33.

Modgil, S., Prakken, H.: The ASPIC+ framework for structured argumentation: a tutorial. Argument Comput. 5(1), 31–62 (2014)CrossRef

34.

Rahwan, I., Simari, G.: Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)

35.

Toni, F.: A tutorial on assumption-based argumentation. Argument Comput. 5(1), 89–117 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRef

36.

Wakaki, T.: Preference-based argumentation built from prioritized logic programming. J. Logic Comput. 25(2), 251–301 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefMATH

37.

Wakaki, T.: Assumption-based argumentation equipped with preferences. In: Dam, H.K., Pitt, J., Xu, Y., Governatori, G., Ito, T. (eds.) PRIMA 2014. LNCS, vol. 8861, pp. 116–132. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)

Titel: Argumentation-Based Reasoning with Preferences
verfasst von: Kristijonas Čyras
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Buch: Highlights of Practical Applications of Scalable Multi-Agent Systems. The PAAMS Collection
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-39386-5

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-319-39387-2

Copyright-Jahr: 2016
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39387-2_17

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Premium Partner