Leila Amgoud

article

A formal characterization of the outcomes of rule-based argumentation systems

Leila Amgoud, Philippe Besnard

Knowledge and Information Systems > 2019 > 61 > 1 > 543-588

Rule-based argumentation systems are developed for reasoning about defeasible information. As a major feature, their logical language distinguishes between strict rules (encoding strict information) and defeasible rules (describing general behavior with exceptional cases). They build arguments by chaining such rules, define attacks between them, use a semantics for evaluating the arguments and finally...

article

An argumentation system for defeasible reasoning

Leila Amgoud, Farid Nouioua

International Journal of Approximate Reasoning > 2017 > 85 > C > 1-20

Rule-based argumentation systems are developed for reasoning about defeasible information. They take as input a theory made of a set of facts, a set of strict rules, which encode strict information, and a set of defeasible rules which describe general behavior with exceptional cases. They build arguments by chaining such rules, define attacks between them, use a semantics for evaluating the arguments,...

chapter

An Argumentation Framework for Merging Conflicting Knowledge Bases

Leila Amgoud, Simon Parsons

Lecture Notes in Computer Science > Logics in Artificial Intelligence > Multi-agent Systems > 27-37

The problem of merging multiple sources of information is central in many information processing areas such as databases integrating problems, multiple criteria decision making, etc. Recently several approaches have been proposed to merge classical propositional bases. These approaches are in general semantically defined. They use priorities, generally based on Dalal’s distance for merging classical...

chapter

A Formal Framework for Handling Conflicting Desires

Leila Amgoud

Lecture Notes in Computer Science > Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty > Logics > 552-563

This paper combines ideas from argumentation [1,8] with desires and planning rules, in order to give a formal account of how consistent sets of intentions can be obtained from a conflicting set of desires. We show how conflicts may arise between desires and we resolve them. We argue that the set of desires can be clustered in three categories: i) the intentions of the agent, ii) the rejected desires...

chapter

Towards a Formal Framework for the Search of a Consensus Between Autonomous Agents

Leila Amgoud, Sihem Belabbes, Henri Prade

Lecture Notes in Computer Science > Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems > Consensus Formation > 264-278

This paper aims at proposing a general formal framework for dialogue between autonomous agents which are looking for a common agreement about a collective choice. The proposed setting has three main components: the agents, their reasoning capabilities, and a protocol. The agents are supposed to maintain beliefs about the environment and the other agents, together with their own goals. The beliefs...

chapter

A Formal Analysis of Logic-Based Argumentation Systems

Leila Amgoud, Philippe Besnard

Lecture Notes in Computer Science > Scalable Uncertainty Management > Regular Contributions > 42-55

Dung’s abstract argumentation model consists of a set of arguments and a binary relation encoding attacks among arguments. Different acceptability semantics have been defined for evaluating the arguments. What is worth noticing is that the model completely abstracts from the applications to which it can be applied. Thus, it is not clear what are the results that can be returned in a given application...

chapter

Towards a Unified Model of Preference-Based Argumentation

Jean-Rémi Bourguet, Leila Amgoud, Rallou Thomopoulos

Lecture Notes in Computer Science > Foundations of Information and Knowledge Systems > Regular Articles > 326-344

Argumentation is a reasoning model based on the construction and the evaluation of arguments. In his seminal paper, Dung has proposed the most abstract argumentation framework. In that framework, arguments are assumed to have the same strength. This assumption is unfortunately strong and often unsatisfied. Consequently, three extensions of the framework have been proposed in the literature. The first...

chapter

Arguing and Explaining Classifications

Leila Amgoud, Mathieu Serrurier

Lecture Notes in Computer Science > Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems > Argumentation and Learning > 164-177

Argumentation is a promising approach used by autonomous agents for reasoning about inconsistent knowledge, based on the construction and the comparison of arguments. In this paper, we apply this approach to the classification problem, whose purpose is to construct from a set of training examples a model (or hypothesis) that assigns a class to any new example. We propose a general formal argumentation-based...

chapter

On Revising Argumentation-Based Decision Systems

Leila Amgoud, Srdjan Vesic

Lecture Notes in Computer Science > Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty > Argumentation Systems > 71-82

Decision making amounts to define a preorder (usually a complete one) on a set of options. Argumentation has been introduced in decision making analysis. In particular, an argument-based decision system has been proposed recently by Amgoud et al. The system is a variant of Dung’s abstract framework. It takes as input a set of options, different arguments and a defeat relation among them, and returns...

chapter

Argumentation Frameworks as Constraint Satisfaction Problems

Leila Amgoud, Caroline Devred

Lecture Notes in Computer Science > Scalable Uncertainty Management > Argumentation Systems > 110-122

This paper studies how to encode the problem of computing the extensions of an argumentation framework (under a given semantics) as a constraint satisfaction problem (CSP). Such encoding is of great importance since it makes it possible to use the very efficient solvers (developed by the CSP community) for computing the extensions. We focus on three families of frameworks: Dung’s abstract framework,...

chapter

Handling Inconsistency with Preference-Based Argumentation

Leila Amgoud, Srdjan Vesic

Lecture Notes in Computer Science > Scalable Uncertainty Management > Regular Contributions > 56-69

Argumentation is a promising approach for handling inconsistent knowledge bases, based on the justification of plausible conclusions by arguments. Due to inconsistency, arguments may be attacked by counterarguments. The problem is thus to evaluate the arguments in order to select the most acceptable ones. The aim of this paper is to make a bridge between the argumentation-based and the coherence-based...

chapter

A Constrained Argumentation System for Practical Reasoning

Leila Amgoud, Caroline Devred, Marie-Christine Lagasquie-Schiex

Lecture Notes in Computer Science > Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems > Argument-Based Reasoning > 37-56

Practical reasoning (PR), which is concerned with the generic question of what to do, is generally seen as a two steps process: (1) deliberation, in which an agent decides what state of affairs it wants to reach –that is, its desires; and (2) means-ends reasoning, in which the agent looks for plans for achieving these desires. A desire is justified if it holds in the current state of the...

chapter

An Argumentation Framework for Merging Conflicting Knowledge Bases: The Prioritized Case

Leila Amgoud, Souhila Kaci

Lecture Notes in Computer Science > Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty > Belief Revision and Merging > 527-538

An important problem in the management of knowledge-based systems is the handling of inconsistency. Inconsistency may appear because the knowledge may come from different sources of information. To solve this problem, two kinds of approaches have been proposed. The first category merges the different bases into a unique base, and the second category of approaches, such as argumentation, accepts inconsistency...

chapter

Agent Dialogues with Conflicting Preferences

Leila Amgoud, Simon Parsons

Lecture Notes in Computer Science > Intelligent Agents VIII > Agent Communication > 190-205

An increasing number of software applications are being conceived, designed, and implemented using the notion of autonomous agents. These agents need to communicate in order to resolve differences of opinion and conflicts of interests, some of which result from differences in preferences. Hence the agents need the ability to engage in dialogues that can handle these communications while taking the...

chapter

Extracting the Core of a Persuasion Dialog to Evaluate Its Quality

Leila Amgoud, Florence Dupin Saint-Cyr

Lecture Notes in Computer Science > Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty > Argumentation Systems > 59-70

In persuasion dialogs, agents exchange arguments on a subject on which they disagree. Thus, each agent tries to persuade the others to change their minds. Several systems, grounded on argumentation theory, have been proposed in the literature for modeling persuasion dialogs. It is important to be able to analyze the quality of these dialogs. Hence, quality criteria have to be defined in order to perform...

chapter

An Argumentation-Based Model for Reasoning About Coalition Structures

Leila Amgoud

Lecture Notes in Computer Science > Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems > Deliberation and Coalition Formation > 217-228

Autonomous agents working in multi-agent environments need to cooperate in order to fulfill tasks. Generally, an agent cannot perform a task alone and needs help from the other agents. One of the solutions to this problem is to look for groups of agents which are able to perform the desired tasks better. Different algorithms have then been proposed for the task allocation via coalition formation....

chapter

On the Equivalence of Logic-Based Argumentation Systems

Leila Amgoud, Srdjan Vesic

Lecture Notes in Computer Science > Scalable Uncertainty Management > Argumentation Systems > 123-136

Equivalence between two argumentation systems means mainly that the two systems return the same outputs. It can be used for different purposes, namely in order to show whether two systems that are built over the same knowledge base but with distinct attack relations return the same outputs, and more importantly to check whether an infinite system can be reduced into a finite one. Recently,...

chapter

An Argumentation-Based Approach to Multiple Criteria Decision

Leila Amgoud, Jean-Francois Bonnefon, Henri Prade

Lecture Notes in Computer Science > Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty > Preference Modelling and Decision > 269-280

The paper presents a first tentative work that investigates the interest and the questions raised by the introduction of argumentation capabilities in multiple criteria decision-making. Emphasizing the positive and the negative aspects of possible choices, by means of arguments in favor or against them is valuable to the user of a decision-support system. In agreement with the symbolic character of...

chapter

Two Roles of Preferences in Argumentation Frameworks

Leila Amgoud, Srdjan Vesic

Lecture Notes in Computer Science > Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty > Argumentation > 86-97

In this paper, we show that preferences intervene twice in argumentation frameworks: i) to compute standard solutions (i.e. extensions), and ii) to refine those solutions (i.e. to return only the preferred extensions). The two roles are independent and obey to distinct postulates. After introducing and studying the postulates, we provide an example of a formal framework which models the two roles...

chapter

A Formal General Setting for Dialogue Protocols

Leila Amgoud, Sihem Belabbès, Henri Prade

Lecture Notes in Computer Science > Artificial Intelligence: Methodology, Systems, and Applications > Agents > 13-23

In this paper, we propose a general and abstract formal setting for argumentative dialogue protocols. We identify a minimal set of basic parameters that characterize dialogue protocols. By combining three parameters, namely the possibility or not of backtracking, the number of moves per turn and the turn-taking of the agents, we identify eight classes of protocols. We show that those classes can be...

INFONA - science communication portal

Search results for: Leila Amgoud

A formal characterization of the outcomes of rule-based argumentation systems

An argumentation system for defeasible reasoning

An Argumentation Framework for Merging Conflicting Knowledge Bases

A Formal Framework for Handling Conflicting Desires

Towards a Formal Framework for the Search of a Consensus Between Autonomous Agents

A Formal Analysis of Logic-Based Argumentation Systems

Towards a Unified Model of Preference-Based Argumentation

Arguing and Explaining Classifications

On Revising Argumentation-Based Decision Systems

Argumentation Frameworks as Constraint Satisfaction Problems

Handling Inconsistency with Preference-Based Argumentation

A Constrained Argumentation System for Practical Reasoning

An Argumentation Framework for Merging Conflicting Knowledge Bases: The Prioritized Case

Agent Dialogues with Conflicting Preferences

Extracting the Core of a Persuasion Dialog to Evaluate Its Quality

An Argumentation-Based Model for Reasoning About Coalition Structures

On the Equivalence of Logic-Based Argumentation Systems

An Argumentation-Based Approach to Multiple Criteria Decision

Two Roles of Preferences in Argumentation Frameworks

A Formal General Setting for Dialogue Protocols

Filter options

Publication date

Publication type

Keywords

Data set

Journal

INFONA - science communication portal

Search results for: Leila Amgoud

Add recipient

Sending message cancelled

Are you sure you want to cancel sending this message?

Send message

Filter options

Publication date

Date range setting

Set the date range to filter the displayed results. You can set a starting date, ending date or both. You can enter the dates manually or choose them from the calendar.

Publication type

Keywords

Data set

Journal

Reporting an error / abuse

Sending the report failed

Accessibility options