Related papers: Block Argumentation
The study of arguments as abstract entities and their interaction as introduced by Dung (Artificial Intelligence 177, 1995) has become one of the most active research branches within Artificial Intelligence and Reasoning. A main issue for…
In ASPIC-style structured argumentation an argument can rebut another argument by attacking its conclusion. Two ways of formalizing rebuttal have been proposed: In restricted rebuttal, the attacked conclusion must have been arrived at with…
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…
Abstract argumentation offers an appealing way of representing and evaluating arguments and counterarguments. This approach can be enhanced by a probability assignment to each argument. There are various interpretations that can be ascribed…
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…
In computational argumentation, gradual semantics are fine-grained alternatives to extension-based and labelling-based semantics . They ascribe a dialectical strength to (components of) arguments sanctioning their degree of acceptability.…
The matrices and their sub-blocks are introduced into the study of determining various extensions in the sense of Dung's theory of argumentation frameworks. It is showed that each argumentation framework has its matrix representations, and…
In this work, we show that both logic programming and abstract argumentation frameworks can be interpreted in terms of Nelson's constructive logic N4. We do so by formalizing, in this logic, two principles that we call non-contradictory…
Gradual semantics with abstract argumentation provide each argument with a score reflecting its acceptability, i.e. how "much" it is attacked by other arguments. Many different gradual semantics have been proposed in the literature, each…
An extension of an abstract argumentation framework, called collective argumentation, is introduced in which the attack relation is defined directly among sets of arguments. The extension turns out to be suitable, in particular, for…
The combination of argumentation and probability paves the way to new accounts of qualitative and quantitative uncertainty, thereby offering new theoretical and applicative opportunities. Due to a variety of interests, probabilistic…
Argumentation has proved a useful tool in defining formal semantics for assumption-based reasoning by viewing a proof as a process in which proponents and opponents attack each others arguments by undercuts (attack to an argument's premise)…
Much like admissibility is the key concept underlying preferred semantics, strong admissibility is the key concept underlying grounded semantics, as membership of a strongly admissible set is sufficient to show membership of the grounded…
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…
Bilateralism is the position according to which assertion and rejection are conceptually independent speech acts. Logical bilateralism demands that systems of logic provide conditions for assertion and rejection that are not reducible to…
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…
We propose a novel ranking-based semantics for Dung-style argumentation frameworks with the help of conditional logics. Using an intuitive translation for an argumentation framework to generate conditionals, we can apply nonmonotonic…
Argument graphs provide an abstract representation of an argumentative situation. A bipolar argument graph is a directed graph where each node denotes an argument, and each arc denotes the influence of one argument on another. Here we…
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…
This paper introduces epistemic graphs as a generalization of the epistemic approach to probabilistic argumentation. In these graphs, an argument can be believed or disbelieved up to a given degree, thus providing a more fine--grained…