Start Date: 2011-05-23
End Date: 2011-05-27
Host Institution: King's College London
Host Country: UK
Home Institution: University of Utrecht
Home Country: The Netherlands
When agents aim to reach agreement, they often argue. An important aspect here is the use of preferences to resolve conflicts between arguments. Recently, the proper way to model the use of preferences in argumentation has become a hotly debated topic, with much disagreement and confusion in the literature. The aim of this STSM is to advance the state of the art by developing a principled and comprehensive framework for the use of preferences in argumentation. The subjectivity of preferences calls for methods to reason and argue about preferences, while the dynamic use of preferences calls for a systematic investigation of the possible effects of various ways to resolve conflicts with preferences. Accordingly, the framework is aimed to satisfy the fundamental results of abstract argumentation, the rationality postulates for structured argumentation, and newly proposed postulates for the dynamics of preferences. To realize this aim, the following work will be carried out:
(1) Integrating Modgils extended argumentation frameworks with the ASPIC+ framework for structured argumentation, in light of a novel view on conflict-freeness of sets of arguments.
(2) Extending resolution-based semantics to asymmetric conflicts, formulating and investigating rationality postulates for the extended case.
(3) Combining the results of (1) and (2).