Related papers: Aggregating Bipolar Opinions (With Appendix)
In many real-life situations that involve exchanges of arguments, individuals may differ on their assessment of which supports between the arguments are in fact justified, i.e., they put forward different support-relations. When confronted…
Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks (BAFs) admit several interpretations of the support relation and diverging definitions of semantics. Recently, several classes of BAFs have been captured as instances of bipolar Assumption-Based…
We present ABA+, a new approach to handling preferences in a well known structured argumentation formalism, Assumption-Based Argumentation (ABA). In ABA+, preference information given over assumptions is incorporated directly into the…
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…
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.…
Assumption-based Argumentation (ABA) is a well-known structured argumentation formalism, whereby arguments and attacks between them are drawn from rules, defeasible assumptions and their contraries. A common restriction imposed on ABA…
We augment Assumption Based Argumentation (ABA for short) with weighted argumentation. In a nutshell, we assign weights to arguments and then derive the weight of attacks between ABA arguments. We illustrate our proposal through running…
Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks (QBAFs) provide an alternative approach to computing argument acceptability in Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks (BAFs). Each argument is assigned an initial strength, which is then updated to a…
Various structured argumentation frameworks utilize preferences as part of their standard inference procedure to enable reasoning with preferences. In this paper, we consider an inverse of the standard reasoning problem, seeking to identify…
Most existing computational tools for assumption-based argumentation (ABA) focus on so-called flat frameworks, disregarding the more general case. In this paper, we study an instantiation-based approach for reasoning in possibly non-flat…
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…
We introduce Forecasting Argumentation Frameworks (FAFs), a novel argumentation-based methodology for forecasting informed by recent judgmental forecasting research. FAFs comprise update frameworks which empower (human or artificial) agents…
Assumption-based Argumentation (ABA) is a well-established form of structured argumentation. ABA frameworks with an underlying atomic language are widely studied, but their applicability is limited by a representational restriction to…
This work proposes novel splitting techniques for argumentation formalisms that incorporate supports between defeasible elements. We base our studies on bipolar set-based argumentation frameworks (BSAFs) which generalize argumentation…
In this work, we broaden the investigation of admissibility notions in the context of assumption-based argumentation (ABA). More specifically, we study two prominent alternatives to the standard notion of admissibility from abstract…
Assumption-based Argumentation (ABA) is advocated as a unifying formalism for various forms of non-monotonic reasoning, including logic programming. It allows capturing defeasible knowledge, subject to argumentative debate. While, in much…
This paper develops a new approach to computational argumentation that is informed by philosophical and linguistic views. Namely, it takes into account two ideas that have received little attention in the literature on computational…
In dialogical argumentation it is often assumed that the involved parties always correctly identify the intended statements posited by each other, realize all of the associated relations, conform to the three acceptability states (accepted,…
Given a set of conflicting arguments, there can exist multiple plausible opinions about which arguments should be accepted, rejected, or deemed undecided. We study the problem of how multiple such judgments can be aggregated. We define the…
Assumption-based argumentation (ABA) is a central structured argumentation formalism. As shown recently, answer set programming (ASP) enables efficiently solving NP-hard reasoning tasks of ABA in practice, in particular in the commonly…