5 research outputs found

    dynPARTIX - A Dynamic Programming Reasoner for Abstract Argumentation

    Full text link
    The aim of this paper is to announce the release of a novel system for abstract argumentation which is based on decomposition and dynamic programming. We provide first experimental evaluations to show the feasibility of this approach.Comment: The paper appears in the Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Applications of Declarative Programming and Knowledge Management (INAP 2011

    Counting Complexity for Reasoning in Abstract Argumentation

    Full text link
    In this paper, we consider counting and projected model counting of extensions in abstract argumentation for various semantics. When asking for projected counts we are interested in counting the number of extensions of a given argumentation framework while multiple extensions that are identical when restricted to the projected arguments count as only one projected extension. We establish classical complexity results and parameterized complexity results when the problems are parameterized by treewidth of the undirected argumentation graph. To obtain upper bounds for counting projected extensions, we introduce novel algorithms that exploit small treewidth of the undirected argumentation graph of the input instance by dynamic programming (DP). Our algorithms run in time double or triple exponential in the treewidth depending on the considered semantics. Finally, we take the exponential time hypothesis (ETH) into account and establish lower bounds of bounded treewidth algorithms for counting extensions and projected extension.Comment: Extended version of a paper published at AAAI-1

    Foundations of implementations for formal argumentation

    Get PDF
    We survey the current state of the art of general techniques, as well as specific software systems for solving tasks in abstract argumentation frameworks, structured argumentation frameworks, and approaches for visualizing and analysing argumentation. Furthermore, we discuss challenges and promising techniques such as parallel processing and approximation approaches. Finally, we address the issue of evaluating software systems empirically with links to the International Competition on Computational Models of Argumentation

    Système d'argumentation pour la collaboration en télémédecine

    Get PDF
    La télémédecine consiste en la pratique d’actes médicaux à distance par l’usage des nouvelles technologies de l’information et de la communication. Parmi ces actes médicaux, nous nous sommes intéressés à la téléexpertise qui est une sorte d’activité collaborative consistant aux recueils d’avis d’experts médicaux face à un problème de santé donné. Dans notre travail, nous avons fait le choix de modéliser ces activités collaboratives par le système d’argumentation de Dung basé sur des fondements mathématiques et qui permet d’illustrer les interactions entre les différentes parties prenantes et par la même occasion fournir des outils mathématiques de prises de décisions. Nous avons opté pour une modélisation sémantique avec des graphes conceptuels car l’un de nos objectifs est de garantir une interopérabilité sémantique. Cette modélisation peut inclure souvent des incohérences (mauvaises relations d’attaques dans le système d’argumentation) qui seront vérifiées par l’usage des contraintes en graphes conceptuels. Pour résoudre ces problèmes d’incohérences deux solutions majeures ont été proposées : (i) la pondération des arguments des différents professionnels de santé, (ii) la modélisation de quelques aspects de droit médical comme contraintes. Ce travail démontre une application informatique du raisonnement logique dans un cadre médical judiciaire où il apporte des éclairages sur la vérification d’information, l’argumentation et l’interaction. Il vise ainsi à garantir une bonne collaboration dans le but de se prémunir d’éventuelles conséquences financières et juridiques.Telemedicine involves the practice of medical procedures remotely through the use of new information and communications technology. Among these medical procedures, we looked at the tele-expertise which is a kind of collaborative activity consisting of collecting the opinions of medical experts facing a particular health problem. In our work, we have chosen to model these collaborative activities by Dung argumentation system based on mathematical foundations and illustrates the interactions between the different stakeholders and at the same time provides mathematical tools decisions. We opted for a semantic modeling with conceptual graphs as one of our objectives is to ensure semantic interoperability. This modeling can often include inconsistencies (poor relations of attacks in argumentation system) which will be verified by the use of constraints in conceptual graphs. To solve these inconsistency problems, two major solutions have been proposed : (i) the weight of the arguments of different health professionals, (ii) modeling some aspects of medical law as constraints. This work demonstrates a computer application of logical reasoning in a judicial medical setting where it sheds light on the verification of information, argumentation and interaction. It aims to ensure good cooperation in order to guard against possible financial and legal consequences
    corecore