Synthesizing Argumentation Frameworks from Examples

نویسندگان

  • Andreas Niskanen
  • Johannes Peter Wallner
  • Matti Järvisalo
چکیده

Argumentation is nowadays a core topic in AI research. Understanding computational and representational aspects of abstract argumentation frameworks (AFs) is a central topic in the study of argumentation. The study of realizability of AFs aims at understanding the expressive power of AFs under different semantics. We propose and study the AF synthesis problem as a natural extension of realizability, addressing some of the shortcomings arising from the relatively stringent definition of realizability. Specifically, AF synthesis seeks to construct, or synthesize, AFs that are semantically closest to the knowledge at hand even when no AFs exactly representing the knowledge exist. Going beyond defining the AF synthesis problem, we (i) prove NP-completeness of AF synthesis under several semantics, (ii) study basic properties of the problem in relation to realizability, (iii) develop algorithmic solutions to AF synthesis using constrained optimization, (iv) empirically evaluate our algorithms on different forms of AF synthesis instances, as well as (v) discuss variants and generalization of AF synthesis.

برای دانلود رایگان متن کامل این مقاله و بیش از 32 میلیون مقاله دیگر ابتدا ثبت نام کنید

ثبت نام

اگر عضو سایت هستید لطفا وارد حساب کاربری خود شوید

منابع مشابه

Hunt for the Collapse of Semantics in Infinite Abstract Argumentation Frameworks

In this work we discuss examples of infinite abstract argumentation frameworks (AFs). Our focus is mainly on existence of extensions of semantics such as semi-stable and stage semantics, as opposed to the collapse where some argumentation frameworks prevent any extension. We visit known examples from the literature and present novel variants. Finally, we also give insights into extension existe...

متن کامل

Instantiating Knowledge Bases in Abstract Dialectical Frameworks

We present a translation from defeasible theory bases to abstract dialectical frameworks, a recent generalisation of abstract argumentation frameworks. Using several problematic examples from the literature, we first show how our translation addresses important issues of existing approaches. We then prove that the translated frameworks satisfy the rationality postulates closure and direct/indir...

متن کامل

Probabilistic Argumentation for Decision Making A Toolbox and Applications

Argumentation frameworks developed in AI have greatly eased the developments of many kinds of intelligent systems. Recently, to deal with quantitative uncertainties, several authors integrate probabilities into such frameworks to propose probabilistic argumentation frameworks. However, the developments of intelligent systems using these new frameworks are still hindered by the lack of programmi...

متن کامل

Abstract Argumentation Scheme Frameworks

Argumentation Scheme Frameworks Katie Atkinson and Trevor Bench-Capon Department of Computer Science University of Liverpool Liverpool L69 3BX UK {K.M.Atkinson,tbc}@liverpool.ac.uk Abstract. This paper presents an approach to modelling and reasoning about arguments that exploits and combines two of the most popular mechanisms used within computational modelling of argumentation: argumentation s...

متن کامل

Merging Deductive and Abductive Knowledge Bases: An Argumentation Context Approach

The consideration of heterogenous knowledge sources for supporting decision making is key to accomplish informed decisions, e.g., about medical diagnosis. Consequently, merging different data from different knowledge bases is a key issue for providing support for decision-making. In this paper, we explore an argumentation context approach, which follows how medical professionals typically reaso...

متن کامل

ذخیره در منابع من


  با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید

عنوان ژورنال:

دوره   شماره 

صفحات  -

تاریخ انتشار 2016