Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Agents that argue and explain classifications

  • Published:
Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. 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.

  2. 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).

  3. Amgoud L. and Cayrol C. (2002). Inferring from inconsistency in preference-based argumentation frameworks. International Journal of Automated Reasoning 29(2): 125–169

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  4. 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

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. 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.

  6. Amgoud, L., Maudet, N., & Parsons, S. (2000). Modelling dialogues using argumentation. In 4th International Conference on MultiAgent Systems, ICMAS 2000. Boston, USA: IEEE Press.

  7. 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.

  8. Amgoud, L., & Prade, H. (2006). Explaining qualitative decision under uncertainty by argumentation. In National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 219–224). AAAI Press.

  9. 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.

  10. Black, E., & Hunter, A. (2007). A generative inquiry dialogue system. In 6th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agents systems.

  11. 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).

  12. Breiman O.S. (1984). Friedman. Classification and decision trees. Wadsworth Press.

  13. Caminada M. and Amgoud L. (2007). On the evaluation of argumentation formalisms. Artificial Intelligence Journal 171(5–6): 286–310

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. 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

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  15. Dunne P. and Capon T.B. (2002). Coherence in finite argument systems. Artificial Intelligence journal 141(1–2): 187–203

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. 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).

  17. 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.

  18. 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.

  19. 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.

  20. 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.

  21. 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).

  22. 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

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  23. Mitchell T. (1982). Generalization as search. Artificial intelligence 18: 203–226

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  24. Mozina, M., Zabkar, J., & Bratko, I. (2006). Argument based rule learning. In 17th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 504–508).

  25. Muggleton S. (1995). Inverse entailment and Progol. New Generation Computing 13: 245–286

    Google Scholar 

  26. 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).

  27. Prakken H. (2006). Formal systems for persuasion dialogue. Knowledge Engineering Review 21: 163–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Quinlan J.R. (1987). Simplifying decision trees. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 27: 221–234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Quinlan J.R. (1990). Learning logical definitions from relations. Machine Learning 5: 239–266

    Google Scholar 

  30. Quinlan, J. R. (1993). A decision science perspective on decision trees. In Programs for Machine Learning. Morgan Kauffman.

  31. Rahwan, I., & Amgoud, L. (2006). An argumentation-based approach for practical reasoning. In International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems.

  32. Simari G.R. and Loui R.P. (1992). A mathematical treatment of defeasible reasoning and its implementation. Artificial Intelligence and Law 53: 125–157

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  33. 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.

  34. 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).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institut de Recherche en Informatique de Toulouse, IRIT, Université Paul Sabatier, 118, route de Narbonne, 31062, Toulouse Cedex, France

    Leila Amgoud & Mathieu Serrurier

Authors
  1. Leila Amgoud
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mathieu Serrurier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Leila Amgoud.

Additional information

This article extends and revises results presented in preliminary form in the paper [9].

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10458-007-9025-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation