Related papers: Attacker and Defender Counting Approach for Abstra…

Dung's abstract argumentation framework consists of a set of interacting arguments and a series of semantics for evaluating them. Those semantics partition the powerset of the set of arguments into two classes: extensions and…

Dung's abstract framework for argumentation enables a study of the interactions between arguments based solely on an ``attack'' binary relation on the set of arguments. Various ways to solve conflicts between contradictory pieces of…

In this paper we show how the defense relation among abstract arguments can be used to encode the reasons for accepting arguments. After introducing a novel notion of defenses and defense graphs, we propose a defense semantics together with…

In Dung-style abstract argumentation, various semantics capture notions of acceptability of arguments. The admissibility semantics capture the notion that an argument can be consistently defended from any potential counterargument. Weak…

In this paper we introduce a novel semantics, called defense semantics, for Dung's abstract argumentation frameworks in terms of a notion of (partial) defence, which is a triple encoding that one argument is (partially) defended by another…

Cycles of attacking arguments pose non-trivial issues in Dung style argumentation theory, apparent behavioural difference between odd and even length cycles being a notable one. While a few methods were proposed for treating them, to - in…

The paper develops a formal theory of the degree of justification of arguments, which relies solely on the structure of an argumentation framework, and which can be successfully interfaced with approaches to instantiated argumentation. The…

We contemplate a higher-level bipolar abstract argumentation for non-elementary arguments such as: X argues against Ys sincerity with the fact that Y has presented his argument to draw a conclusion C, by omitting other facts which would not…

Dung's abstract argumentation theory is a widely used formalism to model conflicting information and to draw conclusions in such situations. Hereby, the knowledge is represented by so-called argumentation frameworks (AFs) and the reasoning…

Argumentation is a promising model for reasoning with uncertain knowledge. The key concept of acceptability enables to differentiate arguments and counterarguments: The certainty of a proposition can then be evaluated through the most…

In this paper, we present a general framework for ranking sets of arguments in abstract argumentation based on their plausibility of acceptance. We present a generalisation of Dung's extension semantics as extension-ranking semantics, which…

We present an extension-based approach for computing and verifying preferences in an abstract argumentation system. Although numerous argumentation semantics have been developed previously for identifying acceptable sets of arguments from…

An abstract argumentation framework can be used to model the argumentative stance of an agent at a high level of abstraction, by indicating for every pair of arguments that is being considered in a debate whether the first attacks the…

This paper studies a fundamental mechanism of how to detect a conflict between arguments given sentiments regarding acceptability of the arguments. We introduce a concept of the inverse problem of the abstract argumentation to tackle the…

Argumentation is a process of evaluating and comparing a set of arguments. A way to compare them consists in using a ranking-based semantics which rank-order arguments from the most to the least acceptable ones. Recently, a number of such…

Abstract argumentation provides us with methods such as gradual and Dung semantics with which to evaluate arguments after potential attacks by other arguments. Some of these methods can take intrinsic strengths of arguments as input, with…

A gradual semantics takes a weighted argumentation framework as input and outputs a final acceptability degree for each argument, with different semantics performing the computation in different manners. In this work, we consider the…

Dung's abstract argumentation frameworks model acceptability solely in terms of an attack relation, thereby conflating two conceptually distinct aspects of argumentative reasoning: direct conflict between arguments and the structural…

Formal argumentation is being used increasingly in artificial intelligence as an effective and understandable way to model potentially conflicting pieces of information, called arguments, and identify so-called acceptable arguments…

Value-based argumentation enhances a classical abstract argumentation graph - in which arguments are modelled as nodes connected by directed arrows called attacks - with labels on arguments, called values, and an ordering on values, called…