Abstract
In this paper, we focus on logical argumentation introduced by Besnard and Hunter. First, we consider the so-called warranted inference which is based on the dialectical principle that is widely used in the literature of argumentatation. More precisely, we compare warranted inference with respect to the most frequently used coherence based approaches from flat belief bases in terms of productivity. It turns out that warranted inference is incomparable, w.r.t. productivity, with almost the coherence based approaches considered in this paper. Also, although too productive in some situations, warranted inference does not entail some very desirable conclusions which correspond to those which can be entailed from each consistent formula. Then, we introduce a new inference relation where the key idea is that the support of a counter-argument must not entail the conclusion of the objected argument which is quite intuitive. We show then that this inference relation ensures the inference of the previous desirable conclusions. Besides, we suggest to distinguish two levels of attacks: strong attacks and weak attacks. We propose then to weight our new inference relation based on the structure of the argument tree and also by taking into account the level strength of attacks.
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
Amgoud, L., Besnard, P.: A formal analysis of logic-based argumentation systems. In: Deshpande, A., Hunter, A. (eds.) SUM 2010. LNCS, vol. 6379, pp. 42–55. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)
Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C.: Inferring from inconsistency in preference-based argumentation frameworks. J. Autom. Reasoning 29(2), 125–169 (2002)
Amgoud, L., Dimopoulos, Y., Moraitis, P.: A unified and general framework for argumentation-based negotiation. In: AAMAS, p. 158 (2007)
Benferhat, S., Dubois, D., Prade, H.: Argumentative inference in uncertain and inconsistent knowledge bases. In: UAI, pp. 411–419 (1993)
Besnard, P., Hunter, A.: A logic-based theory of deductive arguments. Artificial Intelligence. 128(1-2), 203–235 (2001)
Besnard, P., Hunter, A.: Comparing and Rationalizing Arguments. In: Elements of Argumentation. MIT Press, Cambridge (2008)
Besnard, P., Hunter, A.: Logical Argumentation. In: Elements of Argumentation. The MIT Press, Cambridge (2008)
Besnard, P., Hunter, A.: Argumentation based on classical logic. In: Rahwan, I., Simari, G. (eds.) Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence (2009)
Cayrol, C.: On the relation between argumentation and non-monotonic coherence-based entailment. In: IJCAI, pp. 1443–1448 (1995)
Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.-C.: Non-monotonic syntax-based entailment: A classification of consequence relations. In: Froidevaux, C., Kohlas, J. (eds.) ECSQARU 1995. LNCS, vol. 946, pp. 107–114. Springer, Heidelberg (1995)
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), 321–358 (1995)
García, A.J., Simari, G.R.: Defeasible logic programming: an argumentative approach. Theory Pract. Log. Program. 4, 95–138 (2004)
Gorogiannis, N., Hunter, A.: Instantiating abstract argumentation with classical logic arguments: Postulates and properties. Artif. Intell. 175(9-10), 1479–1497 (2011)
Hirsch, R., Gorogiannis, N.: The complexity of the warranted formula problem in propositional argumentation. J. Log. Comput. 20(2), 481–499 (2010)
Kakas, A.C., Moraitis, P.: Argumentation based decision making for autonomous agents. In: AAMAS, pp. 883–890 (2003)
Lagasquie-Schiex, M.-C.: Contribution à l’étude des relations d’inférence non-monotone combinant inférence classique et préférences. Thèse de doctorat, Université Paul Sabatier, Toulouse, France (Décembre 1995)
Martinez, M.V., Hunter, A.: Incorporating classical logic argumentation into policy-based inconsistency management in relational databases. In: The Uses of Computational Argumentation Symposium, AAAI 2009 Fall Symposium Series (2009)
Pinkas, G., Loui, R.P.: Reasoning from inconsistency: A taxonomy of principles for resolving conflict. In: KR, pp. 709–719 (1992)
Pollock, J.L.: How to reason defeasibly. Artif. Intell. 57(1), 1–42 (1992)
Resher, N., Manor, R.: On inference from inconsistent premises. Theory and Decision 1, 179–219 (1970)
Verheij, B.: Automated argument assistance for lawyers. In: ICAIL, pp. 43–52 (1999)
Vreeswijk, G.: Abstract argumentation systems. Artif. Intell. 90(1-2), 225–279 (1997)
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
Yahi, S. (2011). On Warranted Inference in Argument Trees Based Framework. In: Benferhat, S., Grant, J. (eds) Scalable Uncertainty Management. SUM 2011. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 6929. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-23963-2_16
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-23963-2_16
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-23962-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-23963-2
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)