On the computation of top-k extensions in abstract argumentation frameworks
Pages 913 - 920
Abstract
Formal argumentation has received a lot of attention during the last two decades, since abstract argumentation framework provides the basis for various reasoning problems in Artificial Intelligence. Unfortunately, the exponential number of its possible semantics extensions makes some reasoning problems intractable in this framework. In this paper, we investigate the pivotal issue of efficient computation of acceptable arguments called extensions according to a given semantics. In particular, we address this aspect by applying a strategy of how to use preferences at the semantics level in order to determine what are "desirable" outcomes of the argumentation process. Then, we present a new approach for computing the Top-k extensions of an abstract argumentation framework, according to a user-specified preference relation. Indeed, an extension is a Top-k extension for a given semantics if it admits less than k extensions preferred to it with respect to a preference relation. Our experiments on various datasets demonstrate the effectiveness and scalability of our approach and the accuracy of the proposed enumeration method.
References
[1]
Leila Amgoud and Jonathan Ben-Naim, 'Ranking-based semantics for argumentation frameworks', in Proc. of the 7th SUM Conference, pp. 134-147, (2013).
[2]
Leila Amgoud and Henri Prade, 'Using arguments for making and explaining decisions', Artificial Intelligence, 173(3-4), 413-436, (2009).
[3]
Leila Amgoud and Srdjan Vesic, 'Repairing preference-based argumentation frameworks', in Proc. of the 21th IJCAI Conference, pp. 665-670, (2009).
[4]
Leila Amgoud and Srdjan Vesic, 'A new approach for preference-based argumentation frameworks', Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 63(2), 149-183, (2011).
[5]
Leila Amgoud and Srdjan Vesic, 'Rich preference-based argumentation frameworks', International Journal Approximate Reasoning, 55(2), 585-606, (2014).
[6]
Pietro Baroni and Massimiliano Giacomin, 'On principle-based evaluation of extension-based argumentation semantics', Artificial Intelligence, 171(10-15), 675-700, (2007).
[7]
Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon, 'Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks', Journal of Logic and Computation, 13(3), 429-448, (2003).
[8]
Stefano Bistarelli and Francesco Santini, 'Conarg: A constraint-based computational framework for argumentation systems', in Proc. of the 23rd ICTAI Conference, pp. 605-612, (2011).
[9]
Andrei Bondarenko, Phan Minh Dung, Robert A. Kowalski, and Francesca Toni, 'An abstract, argumentation-theoretic approach to default reasoning', Artificial Intelligence, 93, 63-101, (1997).
[10]
Ronen I. Brafman, Carmel Domshlak, Solomon Eyal Shimony, and Y. Silver, 'Preferences over sets', in Proc. of the 21rd AAAI Conference, pp. 1101-1106, (2006).
[11]
Gerhard Brewka, Miroslaw Truszczynski, and Stefan Woltran, 'Representing preferences among sets', in Proc. of the 24th AAAI Conference, (2010).
[12]
Martin W. A. Caminada and Dov M. Gabbay, 'A logical account of formal argumentation', Studia Logica, 93(2-3), 109-145, (2009).
[13]
Federico Cerutti, Paul E. Dunne, Massimiliano Giacomin, and Mauro Vallati, 'Computing preferred extensions in abstract argumentation: A sat-based approach', in Proc. of the 2nd TAFA Workshop, pp. 176-193, (2013).
[14]
Federico Cerutti, Ilias Tachmazidis, Mauro Vallati, Sotirios Batsakis, Massimiliano Giacomin, and Grigoris Antoniou, 'Exploiting parallelism for hard problems in abstract argumentation', in Proc. of the 29th AAAI Conference, pp. 1475-1481, (2015).
[15]
Günther Charwat and Wolfgang Dvorák, 'dynPARTIX 2.0 - dynamic programming argumentation reasoning tool', in Proc. of the 3nd COMMA Conference, pp. 507-508, (2012).
[16]
Yannis Dimopoulos, Bernhard Nebel, and Francesca Toni, 'On the computational complexity of assumption-based argumentation for default reasoning', Artificial Intelligence, 141(1/2), 57-78, (2002).
[17]
Phan Minh Dung, 'On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games', Artificial Intelligence, 77(2), 321-358, (1995).
[18]
Paul E. Dunne and Michael Wooldridge, 'Complexity of abstract argumentation', Argumentation in AI, Springer, 186, 85-104, (2009).
[19]
Wolfgang Dvorák, Matti Järvisalo, Johannes Peter Wallner, and Stefan Woltran, 'Complexity-sensitive decision procedures for abstract argumentation', Artificial Intelligence, 206, 53-78, (2014).
[20]
Uwe Egly, Sarah Alice Gaggl, and Stefan Woltran, 'ASPARTIX: implementing argumentation frameworks using answer-set programming', in Proc. of the 24th ICLP Conference, pp. 734-738, (2008).
[21]
Davide Grossi and Sanjay Modgil, 'On the graded acceptability of arguments', in Proc. of the 24th IJCAI Conference, pp. 868-874, (2015).
[22]
Anthony Hunter, 'A probabilistic approach to modelling uncertain logical arguments', International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 54(1), 47-81, (2013).
[23]
Anthony Hunter, 'Modelling the persuadee in asymmetric argumentation dialogues for persuasion', in Proc. of the 24th IJCAI Conference, pp. 3055-3061, (2015).
[24]
Saïd Jabbour, Lakhdar Sais, and Yakoub Salhi, 'The Top-k frequent closed itemset mining using Top-k SAT problem', in Proc. of the 24th ECML/PKDD Conference, pp. 403-418, (2013).
[25]
Wolfgang Dvorák Matti Jrvisalo, Johannes Peter Wallner, and Stefan Woltran, 'CEGARTIX: a sat-based argumentation system', in Proc. of the 3nd POS Workshop, (2012).
[26]
Souhila Kaci, 'Refined preference-based argumentation frameworks', in Proc. of the 2nd COMMA Conference, pp. 299-310, (2010).
[27]
Souhila Kaci and Leendert W. N. van der Torre, 'Preference-based argumentation: Arguments supporting multiple values', Int. J. Approx. Reasoning, 48(3), 730-751, (2008).
[28]
Sébastien Konieczny, Pierre Marquis, and Srdjan Vesic, 'On supported inference and extension selection in abstract argumentation frameworks', in Proc. of the 13th ECSQARU Conference, pp. 49-59, (2015).
[29]
Jean-Marie Lagniez, Emmanuel Lonca, and Jean-Guy Mailly, 'Coquiaas: A constraint-based quick abstract argumentation solver', in Proc. of the 27th ICTAI Conference, pp. 928-935, (2015).
[30]
Paul-Amaury Matt and Francesca Toni, 'A game-theoretic measure of argument strength for abstract argumentation', in Proc. of the 11th JELIA Conference, pp. 285-297, (2008).
[31]
Sanjay Modgil, 'Reasoning about preferences in argumentation frameworks', Artificial Intelligence, (2009).
[32]
Sanjay Modgil and Henry Prakken, 'A general account of argumentation with preferences', Artificial Intelligence, 195, 361-397, (2013).
[33]
Henry Prakken, 'Formal systems for persuasion dialogue', Knowledge Engineering Review, 21(2), 163-188, (2006).
[34]
Henry Prakken and Giovanni Sartor, 'Argument-based extended logic programming with defeasible priorities', Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics, 7(1), 25-75, (1997).
[35]
Iyad Rahwan and Kate Larson, 'Pareto optimality in abstract argumentation', in Proc. of the 23nd AAAI Conference, pp. 150-155, (2008).
[36]
Iyad Rahwan and Guillermo R. Simari, 'Argumentation in artificial intelligence', Springer, (2009).
[37]
Tjitze Rienstra, Matthias Thimm, and Nir Oren, 'Opponent models with uncertainty for strategic argumentation.', in Proc. of the 23rd IJCAI Conference, pp. 322-338, (2013).
[38]
Avi Rosenfeld, Inon Zuckerman, Erel S. Halevi, Osnat Drein, and Sarit Kraus, 'Negochat: A chat-based negotiation agent', in Proc. of the 13th AAMAS Conference, pp. 525-532, (2014).
[39]
Guillermo Ricardo Simari and Ronald Prescott Loui, 'A mathematical treatment of defeasible reasoning and its implementation', Artificial Intelligence, 53(2-3), 125-157, (1992).
[40]
Nouredine Tamani and Madalina Croitoru, 'A quantitative preference-based structured argumentation system for decision support', in Proc. of the 23nd FUZZ-IEEE Conference, pp. 1408-1415, (2014).
[41]
Matthias Thimm, 'Tweety: A comprehensive collection of java libraries for logical aspects of artificial intelligence and knowledge representation', in Proc. of the 16th KR Conference, (2014).
Recommendations
Preferred Extensions of Argumentation Frameworks: Query Answering and Computation
IJCAR '01: Proceedings of the First International Joint Conference on Automated ReasoningThe preferred semantics for argumentation frameworks seems to capture well the intuition behind the stable semantics while avoiding several of its drawbacks. Although the stable semantics has been thoroughly studied, and several algorithms have been ...
Determining Preferences over Extensions: A Cautious Approach to Preference-Based Argumentation Frameworks
Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with UncertaintyAbstractPreferences in abstract argumentation frameworks allow to represent the comparative strength of arguments, or preferences between values that arguments promote. In this paper, we reconsider the approach by Amgoud and Vesic, which computes the ...
Reasoning about preferences in argumentation frameworks
The abstract nature of Dung's seminal theory of argumentation accounts for its widespread application as a general framework for various species of non-monotonic reasoning, and, more generally, reasoning in the presence of conflict. A Dung argumentation ...
Comments
Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
August 2016
1860 pages
ISBN:9781614996712
Sponsors
- ETINN: Essence ITN Network
- Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Netherlands
- PricewaterhouseCoopers: PricewaterhouseCoopers
- TANDFGROUP: Taylor & Francis Group
Publisher
IOS Press
Netherlands
Publication History
Published: 29 August 2016
Qualifiers
- Article
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 66Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)23
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)2
Reflects downloads up to 06 Jan 2025
Other Metrics
Citations
View Options
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign in