Determining preferences over extensions: a cautious approach to preference-based argumentation frameworks

Saul Gebhardt; Dragan Doder

doi:10.1007/978-3-031-45608-4_9

Determining preferences over extensions: a cautious approach to preference-based argumentation frameworks

Saul Gebhardt^*, Dragan Doder

^*Corresponding author for this work

Sub Intelligent Systems

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceeding › Conference contribution › Academic › peer-review

Abstract

Preferences in abstract argumentation frameworks allow to represent the comparative strength of arguments, or preferences between values that arguments promote. In this paper, we reconsider the approach by Amgoud and Vesic, which computes the extensions of a preference-based argumentation framework by aggregating preferences and attacks into a new attack relation in a way that it favors preferred arguments in conflicts, and then simply applying Dung’s semantics to the resulting graph. We argue that this approach is too rigid in some situations, as it discards other sensible (even if less preferred) alternatives. We propose a more cautious approach to preference-based argumentation, which favors preferred arguments in attacks, but also does not discard feasible alternatives. Our semantics returns a set of extensions and a preference relation between them. It generalizes the approach by Amgoud and Vesic, in the sense that the extensions identified by their semantics will be more preferred than other extensions.

Original language	English
Title of host publication	Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty
Subtitle of host publication	The 17th European Conference, ECSQARU 2023
Editors	Zied Bouraoui, Srdjan Vesic
Publisher	Springer
Pages	109-120
Number of pages	12
Volume	14294
ISBN (Electronic)	978-3-031-45608-4
ISBN (Print)	978-3-031-45607-7
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-45608-4_9
Publication status	Published - 19 Nov 2023

Publication series

Name	Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics)
Volume	14294 LNAI
ISSN (Print)	0302-9743
ISSN (Electronic)	1611-3349

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2024, The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.

Keywords

Abstract Argumentation
Dung’s Semantics
Preferences

Access to Document

10.1007/978-3-031-45608-4_9

978-3-031-45608-4_9Final published version, 301 KBLicence: Taverne

Cite this

Gebhardt, S., & Doder, D. (2023). Determining preferences over extensions: a cautious approach to preference-based argumentation frameworks. In Z. Bouraoui, & S. Vesic (Eds.), Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty: The 17th European Conference, ECSQARU 2023 (Vol. 14294, pp. 109-120). (Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics); Vol. 14294 LNAI). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-45608-4_9

Gebhardt, Saul ; Doder, Dragan. / Determining preferences over extensions : a cautious approach to preference-based argumentation frameworks. Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty: The 17th European Conference, ECSQARU 2023. editor / Zied Bouraoui ; Srdjan Vesic. Vol. 14294 Springer, 2023. pp. 109-120 (Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics)).

@inproceedings{5ece9ade0e584047a3107b85d95d160d,

title = "Determining preferences over extensions: a cautious approach to preference-based argumentation frameworks",

abstract = "Preferences in abstract argumentation frameworks allow to represent the comparative strength of arguments, or preferences between values that arguments promote. In this paper, we reconsider the approach by Amgoud and Vesic, which computes the extensions of a preference-based argumentation framework by aggregating preferences and attacks into a new attack relation in a way that it favors preferred arguments in conflicts, and then simply applying Dung{\textquoteright}s semantics to the resulting graph. We argue that this approach is too rigid in some situations, as it discards other sensible (even if less preferred) alternatives. We propose a more cautious approach to preference-based argumentation, which favors preferred arguments in attacks, but also does not discard feasible alternatives. Our semantics returns a set of extensions and a preference relation between them. It generalizes the approach by Amgoud and Vesic, in the sense that the extensions identified by their semantics will be more preferred than other extensions.",

keywords = "Abstract Argumentation, Dung{\textquoteright}s Semantics, Preferences",

author = "Saul Gebhardt and Dragan Doder",

note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2024, The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.",

year = "2023",

month = nov,

day = "19",

doi = "10.1007/978-3-031-45608-4_9",

language = "English",

isbn = "978-3-031-45607-7",

volume = "14294",

series = "Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics)",

publisher = "Springer",

pages = "109--120",

editor = "Zied Bouraoui and Srdjan Vesic",

booktitle = "Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty",

}

Gebhardt, S & Doder, D 2023, Determining preferences over extensions: a cautious approach to preference-based argumentation frameworks. in Z Bouraoui & S Vesic (eds), Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty: The 17th European Conference, ECSQARU 2023. vol. 14294, Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), vol. 14294 LNAI, Springer, pp. 109-120. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-45608-4_9

Determining preferences over extensions: a cautious approach to preference-based argumentation frameworks. / Gebhardt, Saul; Doder, Dragan.
Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty: The 17th European Conference, ECSQARU 2023. ed. / Zied Bouraoui; Srdjan Vesic. Vol. 14294 Springer, 2023. p. 109-120 (Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics); Vol. 14294 LNAI).

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceeding › Conference contribution › Academic › peer-review

TY - GEN

T1 - Determining preferences over extensions

T2 - a cautious approach to preference-based argumentation frameworks

AU - Gebhardt, Saul

AU - Doder, Dragan

PY - 2023/11/19

Y1 - 2023/11/19

N2 - Preferences in abstract argumentation frameworks allow to represent the comparative strength of arguments, or preferences between values that arguments promote. In this paper, we reconsider the approach by Amgoud and Vesic, which computes the extensions of a preference-based argumentation framework by aggregating preferences and attacks into a new attack relation in a way that it favors preferred arguments in conflicts, and then simply applying Dung’s semantics to the resulting graph. We argue that this approach is too rigid in some situations, as it discards other sensible (even if less preferred) alternatives. We propose a more cautious approach to preference-based argumentation, which favors preferred arguments in attacks, but also does not discard feasible alternatives. Our semantics returns a set of extensions and a preference relation between them. It generalizes the approach by Amgoud and Vesic, in the sense that the extensions identified by their semantics will be more preferred than other extensions.

AB - Preferences in abstract argumentation frameworks allow to represent the comparative strength of arguments, or preferences between values that arguments promote. In this paper, we reconsider the approach by Amgoud and Vesic, which computes the extensions of a preference-based argumentation framework by aggregating preferences and attacks into a new attack relation in a way that it favors preferred arguments in conflicts, and then simply applying Dung’s semantics to the resulting graph. We argue that this approach is too rigid in some situations, as it discards other sensible (even if less preferred) alternatives. We propose a more cautious approach to preference-based argumentation, which favors preferred arguments in attacks, but also does not discard feasible alternatives. Our semantics returns a set of extensions and a preference relation between them. It generalizes the approach by Amgoud and Vesic, in the sense that the extensions identified by their semantics will be more preferred than other extensions.

KW - Abstract Argumentation

KW - Dung’s Semantics

KW - Preferences

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85177806983&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/978-3-031-45608-4_9

DO - 10.1007/978-3-031-45608-4_9

M3 - Conference contribution

SN - 978-3-031-45607-7

VL - 14294

T3 - Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics)

SP - 109

EP - 120

BT - Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty

A2 - Bouraoui, Zied

A2 - Vesic, Srdjan

PB - Springer

ER -

Gebhardt S, Doder D. Determining preferences over extensions: a cautious approach to preference-based argumentation frameworks. In Bouraoui Z, Vesic S, editors, Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty: The 17th European Conference, ECSQARU 2023. Vol. 14294. Springer. 2023. p. 109-120. (Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics)). doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-45608-4_9

Determining preferences over extensions: a cautious approach to preference-based argumentation frameworks

Abstract

Publication series

Bibliographical note

Keywords

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this