A mathematical treatment of defeasible reasoning and its implementation
Artificial Intelligence
Preferred answer sets for extended logic programs
Artificial Intelligence
A logic-based theory of deductive arguments
Artificial Intelligence
A Reasoning Model Based on the Production of Acceptable Arguments
Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence
Inferring from Inconsistency in Preference-Based Argumentation Frameworks
Journal of Automated Reasoning
Management of Preferences in Assumption-Based Reasoning
IPMU '92 Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Processing and Management of Uncertainty in Knowledge-Based Systems: Advanced Methods in Artificial Intelligence
Acceptability of arguments as `logical uncertainty'
ECSQARU '93 Proceedings of the European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning and Uncertainty
A Dialogue Game Protocol for Agent Purchase Negotiations
Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems
Defeasible logic programming: an argumentative approach
Theory and Practice of Logic Programming
On the evaluation of argumentation formalisms
Artificial Intelligence
An argumentation framework for merging conflicting knowledge bases
International Journal of Approximate Reasoning
Preference-based argumentation: Arguments supporting multiple values
International Journal of Approximate Reasoning
Using arguments for making and explaining decisions
Artificial Intelligence
Reasoning about preferences in argumentation frameworks
Artificial Intelligence
Bridging the Gap between Abstract Argumentation Systems and Logic
SUM '09 Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Scalable Uncertainty Management
Preferred subtheories: an extended logical framework for default reasoning
IJCAI'89 Proceedings of the 11th international joint conference on Artificial intelligence - Volume 2
On the relation between argumentation and non-monotonic coherence based entailment
IJCAI'95 Proceedings of the 14th international joint conference on Artificial intelligence - Volume 2
Repairing preference-based argumentation frameworks
IJCAI'09 Proceedings of the 21st international jont conference on Artifical intelligence
Extending Argumentation to Make Good Decisions
ADT '09 Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Algorithmic Decision Theory
On the Role of Preferences in Argumentation Frameworks
ICTAI '10 Proceedings of the 2010 22nd IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence - Volume 01
Handling inconsistency with preference-based argumentation
SUM'10 Proceedings of the 4th international conference on Scalable uncertainty management
Instantiating abstract argumentation with classical logic arguments: Postulates and properties
Artificial Intelligence
Two roles of preferences in argumentation frameworks
ECSQARU'11 Proceedings of the 11th European conference on Symbolic and quantitative approaches to reasoning with uncertainty
Arguing for decisions: a qualitative model of decision making
UAI'96 Proceedings of the Twelfth international conference on Uncertainty in artificial intelligence
Argumentative inference in uncertain and inconsistent knowledge bases
UAI'93 Proceedings of the Ninth international conference on Uncertainty in artificial intelligence
Towards a formal framework for the search of a consensus between autonomous agents
ArgMAS'05 Proceedings of the Second international conference on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems
Symmetric argumentation frameworks
ECSQARU'05 Proceedings of the 8th European conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty
A new approach for preference-based argumentation frameworks
Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence
A general account of argumentation with preferences
Artificial Intelligence
An Argumentation-Based Approach for Decision Making
ICTAI '12 Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE 24th International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence - Volume 01
Hi-index | 0.00 |
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 fold. First, we study how preferences issued from differences in strengths of arguments can help in argumentation frameworks. We show that they play two distinct and complementary roles: (i) to repair the attack relation between arguments, (ii) to refine the evaluation of arguments. Despite the importance of both roles, only the first one is tackled in existing literature. In a second part of this paper, we start by showing that existing models that repair the attack relation with preferences do not perform well in certain situations and may return counter-intuitive results. We then propose a new abstract and general framework which treats properly both roles of preferences. The third part of this work is devoted to defining a bridge between the argumentation-based and the coherence-based approaches for handling inconsistency in knowledge bases, in particular when priorities between formulae are available. We focus on two well-known models, namely the preferred sub-theories introduced by Brewka and the demo-preferred sets defined by Cayrol, Royer and Saurel. For each of these models, we provide an instantiation of our abstract framework which is in full correspondence with it.