Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Representing Synergy among Arguments with Choquet Integral

  • Conference paper
Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty (ECSQARU 2013)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 7958))

Abstract

Preference-based argumentation frameworks are instantiation of Dung’s framework in which the defeat relation (in the sense of Dung) is computed from an attack relation and a preference relation over the set of arguments. Value-based argumentation framework is a preference-based argumentation framework where the preference relation over arguments is derived from a preference relation over values they promote. We extend value-based argumentation framework with collective defeats and arguments promoting values with various strengths. In the extended framework, we define a function which computes the strength of a collective defeat. We define desired properties for the proposed function. Surprisingly, we show that this function obeying the corresponding properties is Choquet integral, a well-known aggregation function at work in multiple criteria decision.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C.: Inferring from inconsistency in preference-based argumentation frameworks. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 29(2), 125–169 (2002)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C., LeBerre, D.: Comparing arguments using preference orderings for argument-based reasoning. In: ICTAI 1996, pp. 400–403 (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation 13(3), 429–448 (2003)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Bossert, W.: Preference extension rules for ranking sets of alternatives with a fixed cardinality. Theory and Decision 39, 301–317 (1995)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Bulling, N., Dix, J., Chesñevar, C.: Modelling coalitions: Atl + argumentation. In: AAMAS, pp. 681–688 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Choquet, G.: Theory of capacities. Annales de l’Institut Fourier 5, 131–295 (1953)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  7. Coste-Marquis, S., Konieczny, S., Marquis, P., Ouali, M.: Weighted attacks in argumentation frameworks. In: KR (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in non-monotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence 77, 321–357 (1995)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Dunne, P.E., Hunter, A., McBurney, P., Parsons, S., Wooldridge, M.: Inconsistency tolerance in weighted argument systems. In: AAMAS, pp. 851–858 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Grabisch, M.: The application of fuzzy integrals in multicriteria decision making. European Journal of Operational Research 89, 445–456 (1996)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Grabisch, M., Labreuche, C.: A decade of application of the Choquet and Sugeno integrals in multi-criteria decision aid. Annals of Operation Research 175, 247–286 (2010)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Kaci, S.: Refined preference-based argumentation frameworks. In: COMMA, pp. 299–310 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Kaci, S., Labreuche, C.: Arguing with valued preference relations. In: Liu, W. (ed.) ECSQARU 2011. LNCS, vol. 6717, pp. 62–73. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. Kaci, S., van der Torre, L.: Preference-based argumentation: Arguments supporting multiple values. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 48, 730–751 (2008)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Klement, E., Mesiar, R., Pap, E.: Triangular Norms. Kluwer, Dordrecht (2000)

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Krantz, D.H., Luce, R.D., Suppes, P., Tversky, A.: Foundations of measurement. Additive and Polynomial Representations, vol. 1. Academic Press (1971)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Labreuche, C., Grabisch, M.: The Choquet integral for the aggregation of interval scales in multicriteria decision making. Fuzzy Sets & Systems 137, 11–26 (2003)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Marichal, J.-L.: An axiomatic approach of the discrete Choquet integral as a tool to aggregate interacting criteria. IEEE Tr. on Fuzzy Systems 8(6), 800–807 (2000)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  19. Martínez, D.C., García, A.J., Simari, G.R.: An abstract argumentation framework with varied-strength attacks. In: KR, pp. 135–144 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Martínez, D.C., García, A.J., Simari, G.R.: Strong and weak forms of abstract argument defense. In: COMMA, pp. 216–227 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Nielsen, S.H., Parsons, S.: A generalization of dung’s abstract framework for argumentation: Arguing with sets of attacking arguments. In: Maudet, N., Parsons, S., Rahwan, I. (eds.) ArgMAS 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4766, pp. 54–73. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  22. Prakken, H.: A study of accrual of arguments, with applications to evidential reasoning. In: ICAIL, pp. 85–94 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Roth, A.: The college admissions problem is not equivalent to the marriage problem. Journal of Economic Theory 36, 277–288 (1985)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  24. Simari, G.R., Loui, R.P.: A mathematical treatment of defeasible reasoning and its implementation. Artificial Intelligence 53, 125–157 (1992)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. LIRMM - UMR 5506, Montpellier, France

    Souhila Kaci

  2. Thales Research & Technology, Palaiseau, France

    Christophe Labreuche

Authors
  1. Souhila Kaci
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christophe Labreuche
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Information and Computing Sciences, Utrecht University, Princetonplein 5, 3584 CC, Utrecht, The Netherlands

    Linda C. van der Gaag

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Kaci, S., Labreuche, C. (2013). Representing Synergy among Arguments with Choquet Integral. In: van der Gaag, L.C. (eds) Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty. ECSQARU 2013. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 7958. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39091-3_26

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39091-3_26

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-39090-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-39091-3

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation