nach oben

Erschienen in:

2017 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

Semantic Change and Extension Enforcement in Abstract Argumentation

verfasst von : Sylvie Doutre, Jean-Guy Mailly

Erschienen in: Scalable Uncertainty Management

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Einloggen

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

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Change in argumentation frameworks has been widely studied in the recent years. Most of the existing works on this topic are concerned with change of the structure of the argumentation graph (addition or removal of arguments and attacks), or change of the outcome of the framework (acceptance statuses of arguments). Change on the acceptability semantics that is used in the framework has not received much attention so far. Such a change can be motivated by different reasons, especially it is a way to change the outcome of the framework. In this paper, it is shown how semantic change can be used as a way to reach a goal about acceptance statuses in a situation of extension enforcement.

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 Assumption-Based Argumentation Equipped with Preferences and Constraints

Nächstes Kapitel Measuring Disagreement in Argumentation Graphs

This function is called characteristic function by [22]. We call it defense function to avoid confusion with the characteristics from [5].

The Hamming distance between two graphs \(F_1 = \langle A_1, R_1 \rangle \) and \(F_2 = \langle A_2, R_2 \rangle \) is the cardinality of the symmetric difference between \(R_1\) and \(R_2\); in other words, in the present case, it is the number of attacks that it is necessary to add/remove from one graph to get the other.

Since here \(\mathcal {F},\mathcal {F}'\) are singletons, the Hamming distance between graphs can be directly used. For other kinds of change operators, it should be generalized to multisets.

Pakota also provides the possibility to execute enforcement under the preferred semantics. Because of the higher complexity of the enforcement problem under the preferred semantics, our experiment has encountered a high number of timeouts. For this reason, we exclude preferred semantics of our empirical analysis for now.

A complete description and analysis of our experiments, including the instances, the enforcement system, and the curves for every value of |A| and every pair \((\sigma _1,\sigma _2)\) is available online: http://www.math-info.univ-paris5.fr/~jmailly/expSemChange.

Amgoud, L., Ben-Naim, J.: Ranking-based semantics for argumentation frameworks. In: Liu, W., Subrahmanian, V.S., Wijsen, J. (eds.) SUM 2013. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 8078, pp. 134–147. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-40381-1_11 CrossRef

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

Baroni, P., Giacomin, M.: Skepticism relations for comparing argumentation semantics. Int. J. Approx. Reason. 50(6), 854–866 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefMATH

Baroni, P., Giacomin, M., Guida, G.: SCC-recursiveness: a general schema for argumentation semantics. Artif. Intell. 168, 162–210 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefMATH

Baumann, R.: What does it take to enforce an argument? minimal change in abstract argumentation. In: Proceedings of ECAI 2012, pp. 127–132 (2012)

Baumann, R., Brewka, G.: Expanding argumentation frameworks: enforcing and monotonicity results. In: Proceedings of COMMA 2010, pp. 75–86 (2010)

Bisquert, P., Cayrol, C., Saint-Cyr, F.D., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.-C.: Change in argumentation systems: exploring the interest of removing an argument. In: Benferhat, S., Grant, J. (eds.) SUM 2011. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 6929, pp. 275–288. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-23963-2_22 CrossRef

Bisquert, P., Croitoru, M., Dupin de Saint-Cyr, F.: Four ways to evaluate arguments according to agent engagement. In: Guo, Y., Friston, K., Aldo, F., Hill, S., Peng, H. (eds.) BIH 2015. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 9250, pp. 445–456. Springer, Cham (2015). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-23344-4_43 CrossRef

Bisquert, P., Croitoru, M., Saint-Cyr, F.D.: Towards a dual process cognitive model for argument evaluation. In: Beierle, C., Dekhtyar, A. (eds.) SUM 2015. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 9310, pp. 298–313. Springer, Cham (2015). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-23540-0_20 CrossRef

10.

Boella, G., Kaci, S., van der Torre, L.: Dynamics in argumentation with single extensions: attack refinement and the grounded extension (Extended Version). In: McBurney, P., Rahwan, I., Parsons, S., Maudet, N. (eds.) ArgMAS 2009. LNCS, vol. 6057, pp. 150–159. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-12805-9_9 CrossRef

11.

Booth, R., Kaci, S., Rienstra, T., van der Torre, L.: A logical theory about dynamics in abstract argumentation. In: Liu, W., Subrahmanian, V.S., Wijsen, J. (eds.) SUM 2013. LNCS, vol. 8078, pp. 148–161. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-40381-1_12 CrossRef

12.

Cayrol, C., Dupin de Saint-Cyr, F., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.C.: Change in abstract argumentation frameworks: adding an argument. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 38, 49–84 (2010)MathSciNetMATH

13.

Cerutti, F., Giacomin, M., Vallati, M.: Generating structured argumentation frameworks: AFBenchGen2. In: Proceedings of COMMA 2016, pp. 467–468 (2016)

14.

Coste-Marquis, S., Devred, C., Marquis, P.: Prudent semantics for argumentation frameworks. In: Proceedings of ICTAI 2005, pp. 568–572 (2005)

15.

Coste-Marquis, S., Konieczny, S., Mailly, J.G., Marquis, P.: On the revision of argumentation systems: minimal change of arguments statuses. In: Proceedings of KR 2014 (2014)

16.

Coste-Marquis, S., Konieczny, S., Mailly, J.-G., Marquis, P.: A translation-based approach for revision of argumentation frameworks. In: Fermé, E., Leite, J. (eds.) JELIA 2014. LNCS, vol. 8761, pp. 397–411. Springer, Cham (2014). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-11558-0_28

17.

Coste-Marquis, S., Konieczny, S., Mailly, J.G., Marquis, P.: Extension enforcement in abstract argumentation as an optimization problem. In: Proceedings of IJCAI 2015 (2015)

18.

Delobelle, J., Haret, A., Konieczny, S., Mailly, J.G., Rossit, J., Woltran, S.: Merging of abstract argumentation frameworks. In: Proceedings of KR 2016, pp. 33–42 (2016)

19.

Doutre, S., Herzig, A., Perrussel, L.: A dynamic logic framework for abstract argumentation. In: Proceedings of KR 2014, pp. 62–71 (2014)

20.

Doutre, S., Mailly, J.G.: Quantifying the difference between argumentation semantics. In: Proceedings of COMMA 2016 (2016)

21.

Dung, P.M., Mancarella, P., Toni, F.: Computing ideal sceptical argumentation. Artif. Intell. 171(10–15), 642–674 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefMATH

22.

Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming, and n-person games. Artif. Intell. 77(2), 321–357 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefMATH

23.

Dvorák, W., Spanring, C.: Comparing the expressiveness of argumentation semantics. In: Proceedings of COMMA 2012, pp. 261–272 (2012)

24.

Erdös, P., Rényi, A.: On random graphs I. Publicationes Mathematicae, pp. 290–297 (1959)

25.

de Saint-Cyr, F.D., Bisquert, P., Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.: Argumentation update in YALLA (yet another logic language for argumentation). Int. J. Approx. Reason. 75, 57–92 (2016)MathSciNetCrossRefMATH

26.

Wallner, J.P., Niskanen, A., Järvisalo, M.: Complexity results and algorithms for extension enforcement in abstract argumentation. In: Proceedings of AAAI 2016, pp. 1088–1094 (2016)

Titel: Semantic Change and Extension Enforcement in Abstract Argumentation
verfasst von: Sylvie Doutre
Jean-Guy Mailly
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Buch: Scalable Uncertainty Management
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-67581-7

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-319-67582-4

Copyright-Jahr: 2017
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67582-4_14

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"