Más contenido relacionado
Más de Federico Cerutti (13)
Cerutti--ECSQARU 2009
- 1. University of Brescia
Dipartimento di Elettronica per l'Automazione
Knowledge Engineering and Human-Computer Interaction Research Group
© 2009 Federico Cerutti <federico.cerutti@ing.unibs.it>
Encompassing Attacks toEncompassing Attacks to
Attacks in AbstractAttacks in Abstract
Argumentation FrameworksArgumentation Frameworks
Pietro Baroni, Federico Cerutti, Massimiliano Giacomin and Giovanni GuidaPietro Baroni, Federico Cerutti, Massimiliano Giacomin and Giovanni Guida
- 2. Slide 2 © 2009 Federico Cerutti <federico.cerutti@ing.unibs.it>
Summary
Introduction by example
Formalization
Relationship with Dung's Argumentation Framework
Comparison with other approaches
Conclusion and future works
- 3. © 2009 Federico Cerutti <federico.cerutti@ing.unibs.it>
Introduction by exampleIntroduction by example
➢ Formalization
➢ Relationship with Dung's Argumentation Framework
➢ Comparison with other approaches
➢ Conclusion and future works
- 4. Slide 4 © 2009 Federico Cerutti <federico.cerutti@ing.unibs.it>
Example (1)
Simple decision support problem
Bob's holidays plan
Two possible choices:
Gstaad
Cuba
Preferences among the possible choices
Exception to the preference's general rule
- 5. Slide 5 © 2009 Federico Cerutti <federico.cerutti@ing.unibs.it>
Example (2)
There is a last minute offer
for Gstaad →
I should go to Gstaad
GG
If I go to Cuba, I can not
go to Gstaad
There is a last minute offer
for Cuba →
I should go to Cuba
CC
- 6. Slide 6 © 2009 Federico Cerutti <federico.cerutti@ing.unibs.it>
Example (3)
GG
PP
CC
When it is possible, I prefer
to go to a ski resort
According to this preference,
the possible choice for Cuba can
not attack the one for Gstaad
- 7. Slide 7 © 2009 Federico Cerutti <federico.cerutti@ing.unibs.it>
Example (4)
GG
PP
CC
The preference about
skiing does not apply
in the current situation
NN
Since there were no snowfalls in
Gstaad since a month, it is not
possible to go to ski in Gstaad.
- 8. Slide 8 © 2009 Federico Cerutti <federico.cerutti@ing.unibs.it>
Example (5)
GG
PP
CC
AA NN
It is possible to ski in Gstaad
thanks to artificial snow
- 9. © 2009 Federico Cerutti <federico.cerutti@ing.unibs.it>
FormalizationFormalization
➢ Introduction by example
➢ Relationship with Dung's Argumentation Framework
➢ Comparison with other approaches
➢ Conclusion and future works
- 10. Slide 10 © 2009 Federico Cerutti <federico.cerutti@ing.unibs.it>
Argumentation Framework with
Recoursive Attacks (AFRA)
- 11. Slide 11 © 2009 Federico Cerutti <federico.cerutti@ing.unibs.it>
Formalization of the example (1)
GG
PP
CC
AA NN
d
a
b
g
e
- 12. Slide 12 © 2009 Federico Cerutti <federico.cerutti@ing.unibs.it>
Defeat relation
- 13. Slide 13 © 2009 Federico Cerutti <federico.cerutti@ing.unibs.it>
Formalization of the example (2)
GG
PP
CC
AA NN
d
a
b
g
e
- 14. Slide 14 © 2009 Federico Cerutti <federico.cerutti@ing.unibs.it>
Admissibility
- 15. Slide 15 © 2009 Federico Cerutti <federico.cerutti@ing.unibs.it>
Fundamental lemma and
preferred extension
- 16. Slide 16 © 2009 Federico Cerutti <federico.cerutti@ing.unibs.it>
GG
PP
CC
AA NN
d
a
b
g
e
Formalization of the example (3)
- 17. © 2009 Federico Cerutti <federico.cerutti@ing.unibs.it>
Relationship with Dung's Relationship with Dung's
Argumentation FrameworkArgumentation Framework
➢ Introduction by example
➢ Formalization
➢ Comparison with other approaches
➢ Conclusion and future works
- 18. Slide 18 © 2009 Federico Cerutti <federico.cerutti@ing.unibs.it>
Correspondence between AFRA
and AF (1)
AA
BB
aa
bb
CC
AA
BBbb
aa
CC
gg
gg
- 19. Slide 19 © 2009 Federico Cerutti <federico.cerutti@ing.unibs.it>
Correspondence in the example
GG
ee
PP
CC
AA NN
gg
dd
aa
bb
GG
PP
CC
AA NN
d
a
b
g
e
- 20. Slide 20 © 2009 Federico Cerutti <federico.cerutti@ing.unibs.it>
Correspondence between AFRA
and AF (2)
- 21. Slide 21 © 2009 Federico Cerutti <federico.cerutti@ing.unibs.it>
GG
ee
PP
CC
AA NN
gg
dd
aa
bb
Correspondence in the example:
The Preferred Extension
GG
PP
CC
AA NN
d
a
b
g
e
- 22. © 2009 Federico Cerutti <federico.cerutti@ing.unibs.it>
Comparison with other Comparison with other
approachesapproaches
➢ Introduction by example
➢ Formalization
➢ Relationship with Dung's Argumentation Framework
➢ Conclusion and future works
- 23. Slide 23 © 2009 Federico Cerutti <federico.cerutti@ing.unibs.it>
Argumentation attack model
Modelling the strength of nodes and attacks with
propagation
Argumentation attack model [Barringer et al, 2005]
Recursive definition of “torpedoes”, or attacks,
similarly as AFRA attacks
Focus on attack network and its numerical valuation
Dung style semantics issues not considered
- 24. Slide 24 © 2009 Federico Cerutti <federico.cerutti@ing.unibs.it>
The EAF formalism
Reasoning about preferences/values can be
formalized through attacks to attacks
Extended Argumentation Framework [Modgil,
2007;2009]
Specific assumptions:
A limited level of recursion
A constraint on some attacks to be symmetric (when the
involved arguments represent conflicting preferences)
In the paper we have considered a possible extension
of EAF aimed at overcoming these restrictions
- 25. Slide 25 © 2009 Federico Cerutti <federico.cerutti@ing.unibs.it>
Higher-order AF
Reasoning about coalitions
Model of attacks to attacks as an instance of Dung's
Argumentation Framework
Proposal of a “second order argumentation
framework” with some constraints like EAF
Proposal of a “higher order argumentation
framework” without such constraints [Boella et al,
2009]
- 26. © 2009 Federico Cerutti <federico.cerutti@ing.unibs.it>
Conclusion and future Conclusion and future
worksworks
➢ Introduction by example
➢ Formalization
➢ Relationship with Dung's Argumentation Framework
➢ Comparison with other approaches
- 27. Slide 27 © 2009 Federico Cerutti <federico.cerutti@ing.unibs.it>
Conclusion and future works
Preliminary investigation about AFRA
Generalization of Dung's Argumentation Framework
Attacks to attacks recursively encompassed without
restriction
Focus on decision support context
Future works:
Enlarging the theoretical bases of AFRA
Investigating the definition of argumentation semantics in
this context