Selecting Extensions in Weighted Argumentation Frameworks
نویسندگان
چکیده
Recently, Dunne et al. [9,10] introduced the concept of WAF (Weighted Argumentation Framework). Such frameworks extend standard Dung’s ones for abstract argumentation by associating weights with attacks. In the WAF setting, weights are used for relaxing extensions, which proves useful when there are too few extensions. In this paper, we exploit weights in a different perspective. We show how to take advantage of attacks weights within an argumentation process for selecting some extensions among Dung’s ones, which proves useful when there are too many extensions, in order to improve the inferential power of the argumentation framework.
منابع مشابه
Weighted Attacks in Argumentation Frameworks
Recently, (Dunne et al. 2009; 2011) have suggested to weight attacks within Dung’s abstract argumentation frameworks, and introduced the concept of WAF (Weighted Argumentation Framework). However, they use WAFs in a very specific way for relaxing attacks. The aim of this paper is to explore ways to take advantage of attacks weights within an argumentation process. Two different approaches are c...
متن کاملOn the Existence of Semi-Stable Extensions
In this paper, we describe an open problem in abstract argumentation theory: the precise conditions under which semi-stable extensions exist. Although each finite argumentation framework can be shown to have at least one semi-stable extension, this is no longer the case when infinite argumentation frameworks are considered. This puts semi-stable semantics between stable and preferred semantics....
متن کاملA Matrix Approach for Weighted Argumentation Frameworks: a Preliminary Report
The assignment of weights to attacks in a classical Argumentation Framework allows to compute semantics by taking into account the different importance of each argument. We represent a Weighted Argumentation Framework by a non-binary matrix, and we characterize the basic extensions (such as w-admissible, wstable, w-complete) by analysing sub-blocks of this matrix. Also, we show how to reduce th...
متن کاملOn Supported Inference and Extension Selection in Abstract Argumentation Frameworks
We present two approaches for deriving more arguments from an abstract argumentation framework than the ones obtained using sceptical inference, that is often too cautious. The first approach consists in selecting only some of the extensions. We point out several choice criteria to achieve such a selection process. Choices are based either on the attack relation between extensions or on the sup...
متن کاملAbstractly Interpreting Argumentation Frameworks for Sharpening Extensions
ly Interpreting Argumentation Frameworks for Sharpening Extensions Ryuta Arisaka and Jérémie Dauphin [email protected], [email protected]
متن کاملذخیره 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 2012