Applying Dialectic Agents to Argumentation in E-Commerce
Electronic Commerce Research
Prudent Semantics for Argumentation Frameworks
ICTAI '05 Proceedings of the 17th IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence
New Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence
Proceedings of the 2006 conference on Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2006
A dialectic procedure for sceptical, assumption-based argumentation
Proceedings of the 2006 conference on Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2006
Combining sceptical epistemic reasoning with credulous practical reasoning
Proceedings of the 2006 conference on Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2006
Towards argumentation-based contract negotiation
Proceedings of the 2008 conference on Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2008
Pareto optimality in abstract argumentation
AAAI'08 Proceedings of the 23rd national conference on Artificial intelligence - Volume 1
SCC-recursiveness: a general schema for argumentation semantics
Artificial Intelligence
A general framework for argumentation-based negotiation
ArgMAS'07 Proceedings of the 4th international conference on Argumentation in multi-agent systems
Argumentation Methods for Artificial Intelligence in Law
Argumentation Methods for Artificial Intelligence in Law
Practical argumentation semantics for socially efficient defeasible consequence
The 10th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems - Volume 1
| Hi-index | 0.00 |
This paper proposes a practical argumentation semantics specific to practical argumentation. This is motivated by our hypothesis that consequences of such argumentation should satisfy Pareto optimality because the consequences strongly depend on desires, aims, or values an individual agent or a group of agents has. We define a practical argumentation framework and two kinds of extensions, preferred and grounded extensions, with respect to each group of agents. We show that evaluating Pareto optimality can be translated to evaluating preferred extensions of a particular practical argumentation framework, and our semantics is a natural extension of Dungean semantics in terms of considering more than one defeat relation. Furthermore, we show that our semantics has the ability to identify both objectively and subjectively acceptable arguments defined on value-based argumentation frameworks. We give a generality order of four practical argumentation frameworks specified by taking into account Dungean semantics and Pareto optimality. We show that a member of preferred extensions of the most specific one is not just Pareto optimal, but also it is theoretically justified.