Abstract
Conflict resolution is an important issue. Dung’s preferred semantics is a promising approach to resolving conflicts. However, such semantics is not capable of dealing with conflicts satisfactorily in the argumentation frameworks wherein there exists only empty admissible set. To enhance Dung’s preferred semantics, we propose a novel semantics which follows the philosophy of Dung’s preferred semantics, while satisfactorily resolving conflicts among arguments. In order to define our semantics, we first redefine Dung’s basic notion acceptability by using pairs of sets of arguments and then propose the admissible semantics based on such notion. Relationships with Dung’s preferred semantics, ideal semantics and semi-stable semantics are analyzed, and comparisons with other approaches such as CF2 semantics are also discussed.
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.
References
Dung, P.M.: 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)
Elvang-Gøransson, M., Hunter, A.: Argumentative logics: Reasoning with classically inconsistent information. Data Knowledge Engineering 16(2), 125–145 (1995)
Modgil, S.: Reasoning about preferences in argumentation frameworks. Artificial Intelligence 173(9-10), 901–934 (2009)
Pollock, J.L.: How to reason defeasibly. Artificial Intelligence 57(1), 1–42 (1992)
Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: Argument-based extended logic programming with defeasible priorities. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 7(1), 25–75 (1997)
Vreeswijk, G.: Abstract argumentation systems. Artificial Intelligence 90(1-2), 225–279 (1997)
Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C.: Inferring from inconsistency in preference-based argumentation frameworks. Journal of Automated Reasoning 29(2), 125–169 (2002)
Baroni, P., Giacomin, M.: Solving semantic problems with odd-length cycles in argumentation. In: Nielsen, T.D., Zhang, N.L. (eds.) ECSQARU 2003. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2711, pp. 440–451. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)
Baroni, P., Giacomin, M., Guida, G.: Scc-recursiveness: a general schema for argumentation semantics. Artificial Intelligence 168(1-2), 162–210 (2005)
Bench-Capon, T.J.M., Dunne, P.E.: Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Artificial Intelligence 171(10-15), 619–641 (2007)
Caminada, M.: Contamination in formal argumentation systems. In: Verbeeck, K., Tuyls, K., Nowé, A., Manderick, B., Kuijpers, B. (eds.) Proceedings of the 17th Belgium-Netherlands Conference on Artificial Intelligence 2005, pp. 59–65. Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie van Belie voor Wetenschappen en Kunsten, Brussels (2005)
Nieves, J.C., Cortés, U., Osorio, M., Olmos, I., Gonzalez, J.A.: Defining new argumentation-based semantics by minimal models. In: 7th Mexican International Conference on Computer Science, pp. 210–220. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2006)
Prakken, H., Vreeswijk, G.: Logics for defeasible argumentation. In: Handbook of Philosophical Logic, 2nd edn. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht (2002)
Dung, P.M., Mancarella, P., Toni, F.: A dialectic procedure for sceptical, assumption-based argumentation. In: Dunne, P.E., Bench-Capon, T.J.M. (eds.) COMMA 2006. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 144, pp. 145–156. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2006)
Caminada, M.: Semi-stable semantics. In: Dunne, P.E., Bench-Capon, T.J.M. (eds.) COMMA 2006. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 144, pp. 121–130. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2006)
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)
Dunne, P.E., Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Complexity and Combinatorial Properties of Argument Systems. Technical report, University of Liverpool, Department of Computer Science (2001)
Dunne, P.E., Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Coherence in finite argument systems. Artificial Intelligence 141(1/2), 187–203 (2002)
Doutre, S., Mengin, J.: Preferred extensions of argumentation frameworks: Query answering and computation. In: Goré, R.P., Leitsch, A., Nipkow, T. (eds.) IJCAR 2001. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2083, pp. 272–288. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)
Cayrol, C., Doutre, S., Mengin, J.: On decision problems related to the preferred semantics for argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation 13(3), 377–403 (2003)
Dung, P.M., Mancarella, P., Toni, F.: Computing ideal sceptical argumentation. Artificial Intelligence 171(10-15), 642–674 (2007)
Nieves, J.C., Cortés, U., Osorio, M.: Preferred extensions as stable models. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 8(4), 527–543 (2008)
Baroni, P., Giacomin, M.: Resolution-based argumentation semantics. In: Besnard, P., Doutre, S., Hunter, A. (eds.) COMMA 2008. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 172, pp. 25–36. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2008)
Marquis, S.C., Devred, C., Marquis, P.: Prudent semantics for argumentation frameworks. In: 17th International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence, pp. 568–572. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2005)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2010 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Zhang, Z., Lin, Z. (2010). Enhancing Dung’s Preferred Semantics. In: Link, S., Prade, H. (eds) Foundations of Information and Knowledge Systems. FoIKS 2010. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 5956. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-11829-6_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-11829-6_7
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-11828-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-11829-6
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)