Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Handling Heterogeneous Disagreements Through Abstract Argumentation (Extended Abstract)

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
PRIMA 2017: Principles and Practice of Multi-Agent Systems (PRIMA 2017)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 10621))

Abstract

Agents disagree in many situations and in many ways on their beliefs, preferences and goals. Abstract argumentation frameworks are a formal model to handle disagreement, which is represented as a conflict relation between a set of arguments. To solve the conflict and identify justified arguments, a single argumentation semantics is applied at a global level, under the assumption that the involved conflicts are essentially homogeneous. In the talk I will argue that disagreements are in general heterogeneous and thus should be treated in different ways according both to their nature and to the specific agents features. Accordingly, a general model of abstract argumentation will be discussed, able to handle heterogeneous disagreements by means of multiple argumentation semantics at a local level.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The reader is referred to [3] for an introduction to argumentation semantics also including additional proposals.

  2. 2.

    This has been first proposed in [17] and called sorting.

  3. 3.

    Focusing on extension-based semantics, this has been called Uniform Case Extension Equivalence in [17].

  4. 4.

    More precisely, given a labelling \({\mathcal {L}}\) and a set of arguments \(\mathcal {A} rgs \), \({{\mathcal {L}}}{\downarrow _{\mathcal {A} rgs }} \equiv {\mathcal {L}}\cap (\mathcal {A} rgs \times \{\mathtt {in},\mathtt {out},\mathtt {undec}\})\).

References

  1. Amgoud, L., Dimopolous, Y., Moraitis, P.: A unified and general framework for argumentation-based negotiation. In: Proceedings of AAMAS 2007, pp. 113–124 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Baroni, P., Boella, G., Cerutti, F., Giacomin, M., van der Torre, L.W.N., Villata, S.: On the input/output behavior of argumentation frameworks. Artif. Intell. 217, 144–197 (2014)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Baroni, P., Caminada, M., Giacomin, M.: An introduction to argumentation semantics. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 26(4), 365–410 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Baroni, P., Giacomin, M.: Skepticism relations for comparing argumentation semantics. Int. J. Approximate Reasoning 50(6), 854–866 (2009)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Bench-Capon, T., Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: Argumentation in legal reasoning. In: Simari, G., Rahwan, I. (eds.) Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 363–382. Springer, Boston (2009). doi:10.1007/978-0-387-98197-0_18

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. Caminada, M., Amgoud, L.: On the evaluation of argumentation formalisms. Artif. Intell. 171, 286–310 (2007)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Capobianco, M., Chesñevar, C.I., Simari, G.R.: Argumentation and the dynamics of warranted beliefs in changing environments. Auton. Agent. Multi-Agent Syst. 11(2), 127–151 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Dung, P.M.: On the Acceptability of Arguments and Its Fundamental Role in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Logic Programming, and n-Person Games. Artif. Intell. 77(2), 321–357 (1995)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Dung, P.M., Mancarella, P., Toni, F.: A dialectic procedure for sceptical, assumption-based argumentation. In: Proceedings of COMMA 2006, pp. 145–156. IOS Press, Liverpool (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Fox, J., Parsons, S.: Arguing about beliefs and actions. In: Hunter, A., Parsons, S. (eds.) Applications of Uncertainty Formalisms. LNCS, vol. 1455, pp. 266–302. Springer, Heidelberg (1998). doi:10.1007/3-540-49426-X_13

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. García, A.J., Simari, G.R.: Defeasible logic programming: an argumentative approach. Theor. Pract. Log. Program. 4(1–2), 95–138 (2004)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Horty, J.F.: Skepticism and floating conclusions. Artif. Intell. 135, 55–72 (2002)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Modgil, S., Prakken, H.: A general account of argumentation with preferences. Artif. Intell. 195, 361–397 (2013)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Parsons, S., Wooldridge, M., Amgoud, L.: An analysis of formal inter-agent dialogues. In: Proceedings of AAMAS 2002, pp. 394–401 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Prakken, H.: Intuitions and the modelling of defeasible reasoning: some case studies. In: Proceedings of NMR-2002, pp. 91–99. Toulouse, France (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Prakken, H.: Combining sceptical epistemic reasoning with credulous practical reasoning. In: Proceedings of COMMA 2006, pp. 311–322. IOS Press (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Rienstra, T., Perotti, A., Villata, S., Gabbay, D.M., van der Torre, L.: Multi-sorted argumentation. In: Modgil, S., Oren, N., Toni, F. (eds.) TAFA 2011. LNCS, vol. 7132, pp. 215–231. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-29184-5_14

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  18. Toni, F.: A tutorial on assumption-based argumentation. Argum. Comput. 5(1), 89–117 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy

    Massimiliano Giacomin

Authors
  1. Massimiliano Giacomin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Massimiliano Giacomin .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore

    Bo An

  2. Universidade Federal Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil

    Ana Bazzan

  3. Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Caparica, Portugal

    João Leite

  4. Université Côte d’Azur, Sophia Antipolis, France

    Serena Villata

  5. University of Luxembourg, Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg

    Leendert van der Torre

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this paper

Cite this paper

Giacomin, M. (2017). Handling Heterogeneous Disagreements Through Abstract Argumentation (Extended Abstract). In: An, B., Bazzan, A., Leite, J., Villata, S., van der Torre, L. (eds) PRIMA 2017: Principles and Practice of Multi-Agent Systems. PRIMA 2017. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 10621. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69131-2_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69131-2_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-69130-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-69131-2

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation