Les systèmes d'argumentation basés sur les préférences : application à la décision et à la négociation

L'argumentation est considérée comme un modèle de raisonnement basé sur la construction et l'évaluation d'arguments. Ces derniers sont sensés soutenir/expliquer/attaquer des assertions qui peuvent être des décisions, des avis, etc... Cette thèse contient trois parties. La première concerne la notion d'équivalence de systèmes d'argumentation. Nous avons proposé différents critères d'équivalence, étudié leurs liens et montré sous quelles conditions deux systèmes sont équivalents selon les critères proposés. La notion d'équivalence est ensuite utilisée pour calculer les noyaux d'un système d'argumentation. Un noyau est un sous-système fini d'un système d'argumentation et équivalent à celui-ci. La deuxième partie de la thèse concerne l'utilisation des préférences dans l'argumentation. Nous avons étudié les rôles que les préférences peuvent jouer dans un système d'argumentation. Deux rôles particuliers ont été identifiés. Nous avons montré que les travaux existant ont abordé seulement le premier rôle et les approches proposées peuvent retourner des résultats contre-intuitifs lorsque la relation d'attaque entre arguments n'est pas symétrique. Nous avons développé une approche qui pallie ces limites. La troisième partie applique notre modèle d'argumentation à la décision et à la négociation. Nous avons proposé une instanciation de notre modèle pour la décision argumentée. Puis, nous avons étudié la dynamique de cette instanciation. Plus précisément, nous avons montré comment le statut des options change à la lumière d'un nouvel argument. Nous avons également employé notre modèle afin de montrer les avantages de l'argumentation dans des dialogues de négociation.Argumentation is a promising approach for reasoning with uncertain or incoherent knowledge or more generally with common sense knowledge. It consists of constructing arguments and counter-arguments, comparing the different arguments and selecting the most acceptable among them. This thesis contains three parts. The first one concerns the notion of equivalence between two argumentation frameworks. We studied two families of equivalence: basic equivalence and strong equivalence. We proposed different equivalence criteria, investigated their links and showed under which conditions two frameworks are equivalent w.r.t. each of the proposed criteria. The notion of equivalence is then used in order to compute the core(s) of an argumentation framework. A core of a framework is its compact version, i.e. an equivalent sub-framework. The second part of the thesis concerns the use of preferences in argumentation. We investigated the roles that preferences may play in an argumentation framework. Two particular roles were identified. Besides, we showed that almost all the existing works have tackled only the first role. Moreover, the proposed approaches suffer from a drawback which consists of returning conflicting extensions. We proposed a general approach which solves this problem and takes into account both roles of preferences. The third part illustrates our preference-based argumentation frameworks (PAF) in case of decision making and negotiation. We proposed an instantiation of our PAF which rank-orders options in a decision making problem and studied the dynamics of this model. We also used our PAF in order to show the benefits of arguing in negotiation dialogues

Gradual Semantics for Weighted Bipolar SETAFs

Postprin

Sets of Attacking Arguments for Inconsistent Datalog Knowledge Bases

Publisher PD

Equivalence in Logic-Based Argumentation

International audienceThis paper investigates when two abstract logic-based argumentation systems are equivalent. It defines various equivalence criteria, investigates the links between them, and identifies cases where two systems are equivalent with respect to each of the proposed criteria. In particular, it shows that under some reasonable conditions on the logic underlying an argumentation system, the latter has an equivalent finite subsystem, called core. This core constitutes a threshold under which arguments of the system have not yet attained their final status and consequently adding a new argument may result in status change. From that threshold, the statuses of all arguments become stable

Toward a More Efficient Generation of Structured Argumentation Graphs

Publisher PD

How to Generate a Benchmark of Logical Argumentation Graphs?

Publisher PD

A partial taxonomy of judgment aggregation rules, and their properties

The literature on judgment aggregation is moving from studying impossibility results regarding aggregation rules towards studying specific judgment aggregation rules. Here we give a structured list of most rules that have been proposed and studied recently in the literature, together with various properties of such rules. We first focus on the majority-preservation property, which generalizes Condorcet-consistency, and identify which of the rules satisfy it. We study the inclusion relationships that hold between the rules. Finally, we consider two forms of unanimity, monotonicity, homogeneity, and reinforcement, and we identify which of the rules satisfy these properties

The Inverse Problem for Argumentation Gradual Semantics

Preprin

Building an Epistemic Logic for Argumentation

Abstract. In this paper, we study a multi-agent setting in which each agent is aware of a set of arguments. The agents can discuss and persuade each other by putting forward arguments and counter-arguments. In such a setting, what an agent will do, i.e. what argument she will utter, may depend on what she knows about the knowledge of other agents. For example, an agent does not want to put forward an argument that can easily be attacked, unless she believes that she is able to defend her argument against possible attackers. We propose a logical framework for reasoning about the sets of arguments owned by other agents, their knowledge about other agents' arguments, etc. We do this by defining an epistemic logic for representing their knowledge, which allows us to express a wide range of scenarios

The Principle-Based Approach to Abstract Argumentation Semantics

The principle-based or axiomatic approach is a methodology to choose an argumentation semantics for a particular application, and to guide the search for new argumentation semantics. This article gives a complete classification of the fifteen main alternatives for argumentation semantics using the twenty-seven main principles discussed in the literature on abstract argumentation, extending Baroni and Giacomin’s original classification with other semantics and principles proposed in the literature. It also lays the foundations for a study of representation and (im)possibility results for abstract argumentation, and for a principle-based approach for extended argumentation such as bipolar frameworks, preference-based frameworks, abstract dialectical frameworks, weighted frameworks, and input/output frameworks