skip to main content
10.5555/1558109.1558130guideproceedingsArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesaamasConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Free access

Inconsistency tolerance in weighted argument systems

Published: 10 May 2009 Publication History

Abstract

We introduce and investigate a natural extension of Dung's well-known model of argument systems in which attacks are associated with a weight, indicating the relative strength of the attack. A key concept in our framework is the notion of an inconsistency budget, which characterises how much inconsistency we are prepared to tolerate: given an inconsistency budget β, we would be prepared to disregard attacks up to a total cost of β. The key advantage of this approach is that it permits a much finer grained level of analysis of argument systems than unweighted systems, and gives useful solutions when conventional (unweighted) argument systems have none. We begin by reviewing Dung's abstract argument systems, and present the model of weighted argument systems. We then investigate solutions to weighted argument systems and the associated complexity of computing these solutions, focussing in particular on weighted variations of grounded extensions.

References

[1]
L. Amgoud and C. Cayrol. A model of reasoning based on the production of acceptable arguments. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 34:197--215, 2002.
[2]
L. Amgoud, N. Maudet, and S. Parsons. Modelling dialogues using argumentation. In E. Durfee, editor, Proc. 4th International Conf. on Multi-Agent Systems, pages 31--38, Boston, MA, USA, 2000. IEEE Press.
[3]
K. J. Arrow, A. K. Sen, and K. Suzumura, editors. Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare Volume 1. Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2002.
[4]
F. Bacchus, A. J. Grove, J. Y. Halpern, and D. Koller. From statistical knowledge bases to degrees of belief. Artificial Intelligence, 87:75--143, 1996.
[5]
T. Bench-Capon. Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. J. of Logic and Computation, 13(3):429--448, 2003.
[6]
T. Bench-Capon, S. Doutre, and P. E. Dunne. Audiences in argumentation frameworks. Artificial Intelligence, 171(1):42--71, 2007.
[7]
T. J. M. Bench-Capon, S. Doutre, and P. E. Dunne. Audiences in argumentation frameworks. Artificial Intelligence, 171(1):42--71, 2007.
[8]
L. Bertossi, A. Hunter, and T. Schaub, editors. Inconsistency Tolerance volume 3300 of LNCS Springer-Verlag, 2004.
[9]
Ph. Besnard and A. Hunter. Elements of Argumentation. MIT Press, 2008.
[10]
C. Cayrol and M.-C. Lagasquie-Schiex. Gradual valuation for bipolar argumentation frameworks. In Proc. 8th ECSQARU, volume 3571 of LNCS, pages 366--377. Springer-Verlag, 2005.
[11]
Y. Dimopolous and A. Torres. Graph theoretical structures in logic programs and default theories. Theoretical Computer Science, 170:209--244, 1996.
[12]
D. Dubois, J. Lang, and H. Prade. A possibilistic truth-maintenance system with uncertain justifications, and its application to belief revision. In J. P. Martins and M. Reinfrank, editors, Truth Maintenance Systems, volume 515 of LNCS, pages 87--106. Springer-Verlag, 1991.
[13]
P. M. Dung. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence, 77:321--357, 1995.
[14]
P. E. Dunne. Computational properties of argument systems satisfying graph-theoretic constraints. Artificial Intelligence, 171:701--729, 2007.
[15]
P. E. Dunne and T. Bench-Capon. Coherence in finite argument systems. Artificial Intelligence, 141:187--203, 2002.
[16]
P. Krause, S. Ambler, M. Elvang-Gørannson, and J. Fox. A logic of argumentation for reasoning under uncertainty. Computational Intelligence, 11 (1):113--131, 1995.
[17]
P. Krause, J. Fox, P. Judson, and M. Patel. Qualitative risk assessment fulfils a need. In Applications of Uncertainty Formalisms, volume 1455 of LNCS, pages 138--156. Springer, 1998.
[18]
D. Martinez, A. Garcia, and G. Simari. An abstract argumentation framework with varied-strength attacks. In Proc. KR'08, 2008.
[19]
P. Matt and F. Toni. A game-theoretic measure of argument strength for abstract argumentation. In Proc. JELIA'08 volume 5293 of LNAI, pages 285--297. Springer, 2008.
[20]
S. Modgil. An abstract theory of argumentation that accommodates defeasible reasoning about preferences. In Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty, volume 4724 of LNCS. Springer, 2007.
[21]
S. Modgil and T. Bench-Capon. Integrating object and meta-level value based argumentation. In Proc. COMMA 2008, pages 240--251. IOS Press, 2008.
[22]
E. Neufeld and D. Poole. Towards solving the mutiple extension problem: combining defaults and probability. In L. N. Kanal, T. S. Levitt, and J. F. Lemmer, editors, Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence 3, pages 35--44. Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1989.
[23]
C. H. Papadimitriou. Computational Complexity. Addison-Wesley: Reading, MA, 1994.
[24]
S. Parsons. Qualitative methods for reasoning under uncertainty. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2001.
[25]
S. Parsons. On precise and correct qualitative probabilistic reasoning. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 35:111--135, 2004.
[26]
D. Poole. Probabilistic horn abduction and Bayesian networks. Artificial Intelligence, 64:81--129, 1993.
[27]
H. Prakken and G. Sartor. Argument-based logic programming with defeasible priorities. Journal of Applied Non-classical Logics, 7:25--75, 1997.
[28]
I. Rahwan and K. Larson. Pareto optimality in abstract argumentation. In Proc. AAAI'08. AAAI Press, 2008.
[29]
G. Shafer. A Mathematical Theory of Evidence. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1976.
[30]
W. Spohn. A general non-probabilistic theory of inductive reasoning. In R. D. Shachter, T. S. Levitt, L. N. Kanal, and J. F. Lemmer, editors, Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence 4, pages 149--158. Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1990.
[31]
V. Tamma and S. Parsons. Argumentation and qualitative reasoning with kappa calculus. In Proc. 6th ECSQARU, volume 2143 of LNCS, pages 680--691. Springer, 2001.
[32]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Guidelines for carcinogen risk assessment. U.S. Federal Register, 51:33991--34003, 24 September 1986.

Cited By

View all
  • (2017)Propagating degrees of truth on an argumentation frameworkProceedings of the Symposium on Applied Computing10.1145/3019612.3019717(995-1002)Online publication date: 3-Apr-2017
  • (2015)Envisioning a collaborative smart home solution based on argumentative dialoguesProceedings of the 7th Balkan Conference on Informatics Conference10.1145/2801081.2801098(1-6)Online publication date: 2-Sep-2015
  • (2013)Arguing about social evaluationsInternational Journal of Approximate Reasoning10.1016/j.ijar.2012.11.00654:5(667-689)Online publication date: 1-Jul-2013
  • Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image Guide Proceedings
AAMAS '09: Proceedings of The 8th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems - Volume 2
May 2009
730 pages
ISBN:9780981738178

Sponsors

  • Drexel University
  • Wiley-Blackwell
  • Microsoft Research: Microsoft Research
  • Whitestein Technologies
  • European Office of Aerospace Research and Development, Air Force Office of Scientific Research, United States Air Force Research Laboratory
  • The Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents

Publisher

International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems

Richland, SC

Publication History

Published: 10 May 2009

Author Tags

  1. argumentation
  2. complexity
  3. handling inconsistency

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 1,155 of 5,036 submissions, 23%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)34
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)6
Reflects downloads up to 07 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2017)Propagating degrees of truth on an argumentation frameworkProceedings of the Symposium on Applied Computing10.1145/3019612.3019717(995-1002)Online publication date: 3-Apr-2017
  • (2015)Envisioning a collaborative smart home solution based on argumentative dialoguesProceedings of the 7th Balkan Conference on Informatics Conference10.1145/2801081.2801098(1-6)Online publication date: 2-Sep-2015
  • (2013)Arguing about social evaluationsInternational Journal of Approximate Reasoning10.1016/j.ijar.2012.11.00654:5(667-689)Online publication date: 1-Jul-2013
  • (2013)Argumentation frameworks as constraint satisfaction problemsAnnals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence10.1007/s10472-013-9343-069:1(131-148)Online publication date: 1-Sep-2013
  • (2013)Representing synergy among arguments with choquet integralProceedings of the 12th European conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty10.1007/978-3-642-39091-3_26(302-314)Online publication date: 8-Jul-2013
  • (2012)Weighted attacks in argumentation frameworksProceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning10.5555/3031843.3031917(593-597)Online publication date: 10-Jun-2012
  • (2011)On the equivalence of logic-based argumentation systemsProceedings of the 5th international conference on Scalable uncertainty management10.5555/2050266.2050280(123-136)Online publication date: 10-Oct-2011
  • (2011)Argumentation frameworks as constraint satisfaction problemsProceedings of the 5th international conference on Scalable uncertainty management10.5555/2050266.2050279(110-122)Online publication date: 10-Oct-2011
  • (2011)On the outcomes of multiparty persuasionThe 10th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems - Volume 110.5555/2030470.2030478(47-54)Online publication date: 2-May-2011
  • (2011)Arguing with valued preference relationsProceedings of the 11th European conference on Symbolic and quantitative approaches to reasoning with uncertainty10.5555/2026067.2026075(62-73)Online publication date: 29-Jun-2011
  • Show More Cited By

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Login options

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media