Abstract
Argumentation is a promising approach used by autonomous agents for reasoning about inconsistent/incomplete/uncertain 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 that assigns a class to any new example. We propose a formal argumentation-based model that constructs arguments in favor of each possible classification of an example, evaluates them, and determines among the conflicting arguments the acceptable ones. Finally, a “valid” classification of the example is suggested. Thus, not only the class of the example is given, but also the reasons behind that classification are provided to the user as well in a form that is easy to grasp. We show that such an argumentation-based approach for classification offers other advantages, like for instance classifying examples even when the set of training examples is inconsistent, and considering more general preference relations between hypotheses. In the particular case of concept learning, the results of version space theory developed by Mitchell are retrieved in an elegant way in our argumentation framework. Finally, we show that the model satisfies the rationality postulates identified in argumentation literature. This ensures that the model delivers sound results.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Amgoud, L. (2003). A formal framework for handling conflicting desires. In 7th European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty (pp. 552–563). LNAI 2711.
Amgoud, L., Belabbes, S., & Prade, H. (2005). Towards a formal framework for the search of a consensus between autonomous agents. In 4th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (pp. 537–543).
Amgoud L. and Cayrol C. (2002). Inferring from inconsistency in preference-based argumentation frameworks. International Journal of Automated Reasoning 29(2): 125–169
Amgoud L. and Cayrol C. (2002). A reasoning model based on the production of acceptable arguments. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 34: 197–216
Amgoud, L., & Kaci, S. (2005). An argumentation framework for merging conflicting knowledge bases: The prioritized case. In 8th European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty.
Amgoud, L., Maudet, N., & Parsons, S. (2000). Modelling dialogues using argumentation. In 4th International Conference on MultiAgent Systems, ICMAS 2000. Boston, USA: IEEE Press.
Amgoud, L., & Parsons, S. (2002). An argumentation framework for merging conflicting knowledge bases. In 8th European Conference on Logics in Artificial Intelligence (pp. 27–37). LNCS 2424.
Amgoud, L., & Prade, H. (2006). Explaining qualitative decision under uncertainty by argumentation. In National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 219–224). AAAI Press.
Amgoud, L., Serrurier, M. (2007). Arguing and explaining classifications. In O. Sheory & M. Huhns (Eds.), International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2007) (pp. 979-985). ACM Press.
Black, E., & Hunter, A. (2007). A generative inquiry dialogue system. In 6th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agents systems.
Bonet, B., & Geffner, H. (1996). Arguing for decisions: A qualitative model of decision making. In 12th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (pp. 98–105).
Breiman O.S. (1984). Friedman. Classification and decision trees. Wadsworth Press.
Caminada M. and Amgoud L. (2007). On the evaluation of argumentation formalisms. Artificial Intelligence Journal 171(5–6): 286–310
Dung P.M. (1995). On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence Journal 77: 321–357
Dunne P. and Capon T.B. (2002). Coherence in finite argument systems. Artificial Intelligence journal 141(1–2): 187–203
Elvang-Gransson, M., Krause, P., & Fox, J. (1993). Acceptability of arguments as ‘logical uncertainty’ In Proceedings of the European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning and Uncertainty (pp. 85–90).
Fox, J., & Parsons, S. (1997). On using arguments for reasoning about actions and values. In Proceedings of the AAAI Spring Symposium on Qualitative Preferences in Deliberation and Practical Reasoning, Stanford.
Gómez, S. A., & Chesñevar, C. I. (2003). Integrating defeasible argumentation with fuzzy art neural networks for pattern classification. In Proceedings of the ECML’03, Dubrovnik, September 2003.
Gomez, S. A., & Chesnevar, C. I. (2004). A hybrid approach to pattern classification using neural networks and defeasible argumentation. In 17th International FLAIRS 2004 Conference (pp. 393–398). AAAI Press.
Hulstijn, J., & van der Torre, L. (2004). Combining goal generation and planning in an argumentation framework. In J. Delgrande, & T. Schaub (Eds.), 10th Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning.
Kakas, A., Moraitis, P. (2006). Adaptive agent negotiation via argumentation. In Proceedings of the 5th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agents systems (pp. 384–391).
Kraus S., Sycara K. and Evenchik A. (1998). Reaching agreements through argumentation: A logical model and implementation. Journal of Artificial Intelligence 104(1–2): 1–69
Mitchell T. (1982). Generalization as search. Artificial intelligence 18: 203–226
Mozina, M., Zabkar, J., & Bratko, I. (2006). Argument based rule learning. In 17th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 504–508).
Muggleton S. (1995). Inverse entailment and Progol. New Generation Computing 13: 245–286
Parsons, S., & Jennings, N. R. (1996). Negotiation through argumentation—a preliminary report. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Multi Agent Systems (pp. 267–274).
Prakken H. (2006). Formal systems for persuasion dialogue. Knowledge Engineering Review 21: 163–188
Quinlan J.R. (1987). Simplifying decision trees. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 27: 221–234
Quinlan J.R. (1990). Learning logical definitions from relations. Machine Learning 5: 239–266
Quinlan, J. R. (1993). A decision science perspective on decision trees. In Programs for Machine Learning. Morgan Kauffman.
Rahwan, I., & Amgoud, L. (2006). An argumentation-based approach for practical reasoning. In International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems.
Simari G.R. and Loui R.P. (1992). A mathematical treatment of defeasible reasoning and its implementation. Artificial Intelligence and Law 53: 125–157
Walton, D. N., & Krabbe, E. C. W. (1995). Commitment in dialogue: Basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. SUNY Series in Logic and Language. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Zabkar, J., Mozina, M., Videcnik, J., & Bratko, I. (2006). Argument based machine learning in a medical domain. In I. Press (Ed.), Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (pp. 59–70).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This article extends and revises results presented in preliminary form in the paper [9].
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Amgoud, L., Serrurier, M. Agents that argue and explain classifications. Auton Agent Multi-Agent Syst 16, 187–209 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10458-007-9025-6
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10458-007-9025-6