Abstract
Argumentation methods and associated tools permit to analyze arguments against or in favor of a set of alternatives under discussion. The outputs of the argument methods are sets of conflict-free arguments collectively defending each other, called extensions. In case of multiple extensions, it is often difficult to select one out of many alternatives. We present in this paper the implementation of an complementary approach which permits to filter or rank extensions according to the expression of preferences. Methods and tools are illustrated on a real use case in food packagings. The aim is to help the industry choose among different end-of-life possibilities by linking together consumer behavior insights, socio-economic developments and technical properties of packagings. The tool has been used on a real use-case concerning end-of-life possibilities for packagings.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
Accessible online at http://pfl.grignon.inra.fr/EcoBioCapProduction/ (although the access is restricted).
- 2.
Please note that for simplicity purposes, we write that a concept belongs to an extension instead of writing that the argument with this concept as a conclusion is contained in the extension.
References
Amgoud, L., Prade, H.: Explaining qualitative decision under uncertainty by argumentation. In: Proceedings, The Twenty-First National Conference on Artificial Intelligence and the Eighteenth Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference, July 16–20, Boston, Massachusetts, USA, pp. 219–224 (2006)
Amgoud, L., Vesic, S.: Two roles of preferences in argumentation frameworks. In: Liu, W. (ed.) ECSQARU 2011. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 6717, pp. 86–97. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-22152-1_8
Arioua, A., Croitoru, M.: Formalizing explanatory dialogues. In: Beierle, C., Dekhtyar, A. (eds.) SUM 2015. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 9310, pp. 282–297. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-23540-0_19
Arioua, A., Croitoru, M.: Dialectical characterization of consistent query explanation with existential rules. In: Proceedings of FLAIRS 2016, pp. 621–625 (2016)
Arioua, A., Croitoru, M.: A dialectical proof theory for universal acceptance in coherent logic-based argumentation frameworks. In: Proceedings of ECAI (2016, to appear)
Croitoru, M., Thomopoulos, R., Vesic, S.: Introducing preference-based argumentation to inconsistent ontological knowledge bases. In: Chen, Q., Torroni, P., Villata, S., Hsu, J., Omicini, A. (eds.) PRIMA 2015. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 9387, pp. 594–602. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-25524-8_42
Croitoru, M., Vesic, S.: What can argumentation do for inconsistent ontology query answering? In: Liu, W., Subrahmanian, V.S., Wijsen, J. (eds.) SUM 2013. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 8078, pp. 15–29. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-40381-1_2
Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif. Intell. 77(2), 321–358 (1995)
Kaci, S.: Working with Preferences: Less Is More. Cognitive Technologies. Springer, New York (2011)
Modgil, S., Prakken, H.: The ASPIC\({}^{\text{+ }}\) framework for structured argumentation: a tutorial. Argument Comput. 5(1), 31–62 (2014)
Tamani, N., Mosse, P., Croitoru, M., Buche, P., Guillard, V.: A food packaging use case for argumentation. In: Closs, S., Studer, R., Garoufallou, E., Sicilia, M.-A. (eds.) MTSR 2014. CCIS, vol. 478, pp. 344–358. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-13674-5_31
Tamani, N., Mosse, P., Croitoru, M., Buche, P., Guillard, V., Guillaume, C., Gontard, N.: Eco-efficient packaging material selection for fresh produce: industrial session. In: Hernandez, N., Jäschke, R., Croitoru, M. (eds.) ICCS 2014. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 8577, pp. 305–310. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-08389-6_27
Tamani, N., Mosse, P., Croitoru, M., Buche, P., Guillard, V., Guillaume, C., Gontard, N.: An argumentation system for eco-efficient packaging material selection. Comput. Electron. Agric. 113, 174–192 (2015)
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the partners of the Pack4Fresh project, for all their help during the argument elicitation phase as well as for their constant feedback.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Yun, B., Bisquert, P., Buche, P., Croitoru, M. (2016). Arguing About End-of-Life of Packagings: Preferences to the Rescue. In: Garoufallou, E., Subirats Coll, I., Stellato, A., Greenberg, J. (eds) Metadata and Semantics Research. MTSR 2016. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol 672. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-49157-8_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-49157-8_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-49156-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-49157-8
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)