Abstract
First, we present a novel approach to an abstract preference-based argumentation framework (an abstract PAF), which generalizes Dung’s abstract argumentation framework (AF) to deal with additional preferences over a set of arguments. In our formalism, the semantics of such a PAF is given as \({\cal P}\)-extensions that are selected from extensions of acceptability semantics by taking into account such preferences. Second, using a prioritized logic program (PLP) capable of representing priority information along with integrity constraints, the proposed method defines the non-abstract preference-based argumentation framework (the non-abstract PAF) translated from a PLP, whose semantics is also given by \({\cal P}\)-extensions instantiating those of an abstract one. Finally we show the interesting result that, \({\cal P}\)-extensions of such a non-abstract PAF under stable semantics capture preferred answer sets of a PLP, which ensures the advantages as well as the correctness of our approach.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C.: A reasoning model based on the production of acceptable arguments. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 34(1-3), 197–215 (2002)
Amgoud, L., Vesic, S.: Repairing preference-based argumentation frameworks. Proceedings of IJCAI 2009, 665–670 (2009)
Amgoud, L., Vesic, S.: Handling inconsistency with preference-based argumentation. In: Deshpande, A., Hunter, A. (eds.) SUM 2010. LNCS, vol. 6379, pp. 56–69. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)
Besnard, P., Doutre, S.: Checking the acceptability of a set of arguments. In: Proceedings of 10th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning (NMR 2004), pp. 59–64 (2004)
Brewka, G., Eiter, T.: Preferred answer sets for extended logic programs. Artificial Intelligence 109, 297–356 (1999)
Brewka, G., Truszczynski, M., Woltran, S.: Representing preferences among sets. In: Proceedings of AAAI 2010, pp. 273–278 (2010)
Caminada, M.: On the issue of reinstatement in argumentation. In: Fisher, M., van der Hoek, W., Konev, B., Lisitsa, A. (eds.) JELIA 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4160, pp. 111–123. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)
Coste-Marquis, S., Devred, C., Marquis, P.: Constrained argumentation frameworks. In: Proceedings of KR 2006, pp. 112–122 (2006)
Delgrande, J.P., Schaub, T., Tompits, H.: A framework for compiling preferences in logic programs. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 3(2), 129–187 (2003)
Dung, P.M.: An argumentation semantics for logic programming with explicit negation. In: Proceedings of ICLP 1993, pp. 616–630. MIT Press, Cambridge (1993)
Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning. logic programming, and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence 77, 321–357 (1995)
Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: The stable model semantics for logic programming. In: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference and Symposium on Logic Programming (ICLP/SLP 1988), pp. 1070–1080. MIT Press, Cambridge (1988)
Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: Classical negation in logic programs and disjunctive databases. New Generation Computing 9, 365–385 (1991)
Thomas The, G.F.: pleadings game: An Artificial Intelligence Model of Procedural Justice. Dissertation, TU Darmstadt (1993)
Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: Argument-based extended logic programming with defeasible priorities. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 7(1), 25–75 (1997)
Prakken, H., Vreeswijk, G.A.W.: Logics for defeasible argumentation. In: Gabbay, D.M., Guenthner, F. (eds.) Handbook of Philosophical Logic, vol. 4, pp. 218–319. Kluwer, Dordecht (2001)
Schweimeier, R., Schroeder, M.: A Parameterized hierarchy of argumentation semantics for extended logic programming and its application to the well-founded semantics. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 5(1,2), 207–242 (2005)
Šefránek, J.: Preferred answer sets supported by arguments. In: Proceedings of 12th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning (NMR 2008), pp. 232–240 (2008)
Sakama, C., Inoue, K.: Prioritized logic programming and its application to commonsense reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 123, 185–222 (2000)
Wakaki, T., Inoue, K., Sakama, C., Nitta, K.: Computing preferred answer sets in answer set programming. In: Vardi, M.Y., Voronkov, A. (eds.) LPAR 2003. LNCS, vol. 2850, pp. 259–273. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)
Wakaki, T., Inoue, K., Sakama, C., Nitta, K.: The PLP system. In: Alferes, J.J., Leite, J. (eds.) JELIA 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3229, pp. 706–709. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)
Wakaki, T., Nitta, K.: Computing argumentation semantics in answer set programming. In: van Hoeve, W.-J., Hooker, J.N. (eds.) CPAIOR 2009. LNCS, vol. 5547, pp. 254–269. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2011 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Wakaki, T. (2011). Preference-Based Argumentation Capturing Prioritized Logic Programming. In: McBurney, P., Rahwan, I., Parsons, S. (eds) Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems. ArgMAS 2010. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 6614. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21940-5_18
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21940-5_18
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-21939-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-21940-5
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)