Related papers: Ranking-based Argumentation Semantics Applied to L…
In this paper, we introduce a new family of argument-ranking semantics which can be seen as a refinement of the classification of arguments into skeptically accepted, credulously accepted and rejected. To this end we use so-called social…
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…
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 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…
We propose and investigate a simple ranking-measure-based extension semantics for abstract argumentation frameworks based on their generic instantiation by default knowledge bases and the ranking construction semantics for default…
Recently, ranking-based semantics is proposed to rank-order arguments from the most acceptable to the weakest one(s), which provides a graded assessment to arguments. In general, the ranking on arguments is derived from the strength values…
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…
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…
Weighted gradual semantics provide an acceptability degree to each argument representing the strength of the argument, computed based on factors including background evidence for the argument, and taking into account interactions between…
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)…
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…
In this paper, we propose a fresh perspective on argumentation semantics, to view them as a relational database. It offers encapsulation of the underlying argumentation graph, and allows us to understand argumentation semantics under a…
In this paper we propose a general approach to define a many-valued preferential interpretation of gradual argumentation semantics. The approach allows for conditional reasoning over arguments and boolean combination of arguments, with…
We introduce stratified labelings as a novel semantical approach to abstract argumentation frameworks. Compared to standard labelings, stratified labelings provide a more fine-grained assessment of the controversiality of arguments using…
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…
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…
The semantics as to which set of arguments in a given argumentation graph may be acceptable (acceptability semantics) can be characterised in a few different ways. Among them, labelling-based approach allows for concise and flexible…
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…
ConArg is a suite of tools that offers a wide series of applications for dealing with argumentation problems. In this work, we present the advances we made in implementing a ranking-based semantics, based on computational choice power…
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…