
Rationalisation of Profiles of Abstract Argumentation Frameworks: Characterisation and Complexity
Airiau, Stéphane; Bonzon, Elise; Endriss, Ulle; Maudet, Nicolas; Rossit, Julien (2017), Rationalisation of Profiles of Abstract Argumentation Frameworks: Characterisation and Complexity, Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 60, p. 149-177. https://doi.org/10.1613/jair.5436
View/ Open
Type
Article accepté pour publication ou publiéDate
2017Journal name
Journal of Artificial Intelligence ResearchVolume
60Pages
149-177
Publication identifier
Metadata
Show full item recordAuthor(s)
Airiau, Stéphane
Laboratoire d'analyse et modélisation de systèmes pour l'aide à la décision [LAMSADE]
Bonzon, Elise
Laboratoire d'Informatique Paris Descartes [LIPADE - EA 2517]
Endriss, Ulle
Institute for Logic, Language and Computation [ILLC]
Maudet, Nicolas

Laboratoire d'Informatique de Paris 6 [LIP6]
Rossit, Julien
Laboratoire d'Informatique Paris Descartes [LIPADE - EA 2517]
Abstract (EN)
Different agents may have different points of view. Following a popular approach in the artificial intelligence literature, this can be modeled by means of different abstract argumentation frameworks, each consisting of a set of arguments the agent is contemplating and a binary attack-relation between them. A question arising in this context is whether the diversity of views observed in such a profile of argumentation frameworks is consistent with the assumption that every individual argumentation framework is induced by a combination of, first, some basic factual attack-relation between the arguments and, second, the personal preferences of the agent concerned regarding the moral or social values the arguments under scrutiny relate to. We treat this question of rationalisability of a profile as an algorithmic problem and identify tractable and intractable cases. In doing so, we distinguish different constraints on admissible rationalisations, e.g., concerning the types of preferences used or the number of distinct values involved. We also distinguish two different semantics for rationalisability, which differ in the assumptions made on how agents treat attacks between arguments they do not report. This research agenda, bringing together ideas from abstract argumentation and social choice, is useful for understanding what types of profiles can reasonably be expected to occur in a multiagent system.Subjects / Keywords
argumentation frameworkRelated items
Showing items related by title and author.
-
Airiau, Stéphane; Bonzon, Elise; Endriss, Ulle; Maudet, Nicolas; Rossit, Julien (2017) Communication / Conférence
-
Airiau, Stéphane; Bonzon, Elise; Endriss, Ulle; Maudet, Nicolas; Rossit, Julien (2016-05) Communication / Conférence
-
Bonzon, Elise; Maudet, Nicolas; Moretti, Stefano (2014) Communication / Conférence
-
Estivie, Sylvia; Endriss, Ulle; Chevaleyre, Yann; Maudet, Nicolas (2008) Article accepté pour publication ou publié
-
Endriss, Ulle; Maudet, Nicolas (2004) Communication / Conférence