Related papers: Rediscovering Argumentation Principles Utilizing C…
The connection between subset-maximal repairs for inconsistent databases involving various integrity constraints and acceptable sets of arguments within argumentation frameworks has recently drawn growing interest. In this paper, we…
Realizability for knowledge representation formalisms studies the following question: given a semantics and a set of interpretations, is there a knowledge base whose semantics coincides exactly with the given interpretation set? We…
Causal models are playing an increasingly important role in machine learning, particularly in the realm of explainable AI. We introduce a conceptualisation for generating argumentation frameworks (AFs) from causal models for the purpose of…
Explainable Artificial Intelligence and Formal Argumentation have received significant attention in recent years. Argumentation-based systems often lack explainability while supporting decision-making processes. Counterfactual and…
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…
Among the most general structures extending the framework by Dung are the abstract dialectical frameworks (ADFs). They come equipped with various types of semantics, with the most prominent - the labeling-based one - analyzed in the context…
The issue of representing attacks to attacks in argumentation is receiving an increasing attention as a useful conceptual modelling tool in several contexts. In this paper we present AFRA, a formalism encompassing unlimited recursive…
Argument Mining (AM) helps in automating the extraction of complex argumentative structures such as Argument Components (ACs) like Premise, Claim etc. and Argumentative Relations (ARs) like Support, Attack etc. in an argumentative text. Due…
We consider multi-agent argumentation, where each agent's view of the arguments is encoded as an argumentation framework (AF). Then we study deliberative processes than can occur on this basis. We think of a deliberative process as taking…
From daily discussions to marketing ads to political statements, information manipulation is rife. It is increasingly more important that we have the right set of tools to defend ourselves from manipulative rhetoric, or fallacies. Suitable…
Detection and elimination of redundant clauses from propositional formulas in Conjunctive Normal Form (CNF) is a fundamental problem with numerous application domains, including AI, and has been the subject of extensive research. Moreover,…
In abstract argumentation, multiple argumentation semantics have been proposed that allow to select sets of jointly acceptable arguments from a given argumentation framework, i.e. based only on the attack relation between arguments. The…
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 recent Control Argumentation Framework (CAF) is a generalization of Dung's Argumentation Framework which handles argumentation dynamics under uncertainty; especially it can be used to model the behavior of an agent which can anticipate…
Recently there has been an increasing interest in frameworks extending Dung's abstract Argumentation Framework (AF). Popular extensions include bipolar AFs and AFs with recursive attacks and necessary supports. Although the relationships…
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…
In abstract argumentation theory, many argumentation semantics have been proposed for evaluating argumentation frameworks. This paper is based on the following research question: Which semantics corresponds well to what humans consider a…
Preference-based argumentation frameworks (PAFs) extend Dung's approach to abstract argumentation (AAFs) by encoding preferences over arguments. Such preferences control the transformation of attacks into defeats, and different approaches…
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…
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…