Related papers: Revisiting Vacuous Reduct Semantics for Abstract A…
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 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…
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…
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…
After a few decades of development, computational argumentation has become one of the active realms in AI. This paper considers extension-based concrete and abstract semantics of argumentation. For concrete ones, based on Grossi and…
In this paper we introduce a novel family of semantics called weakly complete semantics. Differently from Dung's complete semantics, weakly complete semantics employs a mechanism called undecidedness blocking by which the label undecided of…
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…
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…
Abstract argumentation has emerged as a method for non-monotonic reasoning that has gained popularity in the symbolic artificial intelligence community. In the literature, the different approaches to abstract argumentation that were refined…
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…
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…
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…
Abstract argumentation is a reasoning model for evaluating arguments based on various semantics. SCC-recursiveness is a sophisticated property of semantics that provides a general schema for characterizing semantics through the…
We define the syntax and reduction relation of a recursively typed lambda calculus with a parallel case-function (a parallel conditional). The reduction is shown to be confluent. We interpret the recursive types as information systems in a…
In this paper, we address the problem of change in an abstract argumentation system. We focus on a particular change: the addition of a new argument which interacts with previous arguments. We study the impact of such an addition on the…
We revisit the notion of initial sets by Xu and Cayrol, i.e., non-empty minimal admissible sets in abstract argumentation frameworks. Initial sets are a simple concept for analysing conflicts in an abstract argumentation framework and to…
Complex reasoning problems are most clearly and easily specified using logical rules, but require recursive rules with aggregation such as count and sum for practical applications. Unfortunately, the meaning of such rules has been a…
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 formal argumentation, a distinction can be made between extension-based semantics, where sets of arguments are either (jointly) accepted or not, and ranking-based semantics, where grades of acceptability are assigned to arguments.…
I deal with two approaches to proof-theoretic semantics: one based on argument structures and justifications, which I call reducibility semantics, and one based on consequence among (sets of) formulas over atomic bases, called base…