Related papers: Aggregative Semantics for Quantitative Bipolar Arg…
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…
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.…
Gradual semantics (GS) have demonstrated great potential in argumentation, in particular for deploying quantitative bipolar argumentation frameworks (QBAFs) in a number of real-world settings, from judgmental forecasting to explainable AI.…
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…
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…
We introduce a novel method to aggregate Bipolar Argumentation (BA) Frameworks expressing opinions by different parties in debates. We use Bipolar Assumption-based Argumentation (ABA) as an all-encompassing formalism for BA under different…
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…
This paper presents a formal approach to explaining change of inference in Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks (QBAFs). When drawing conclusions from a QBAF and updating the QBAF to then again draw conclusions (and so on), our…
Dung's Abstract Argumentation Framework (AF) has emerged as a key formalism for argumentation in Artificial Intelligence. It has been extended in several directions, including the possibility to express supports, leading to the development…
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…
Weighted bipolar argumentation frameworks offer a tool for decision support and social media analysis. Arguments are evaluated by an iterative procedure that takes initial weights and attack and support relations into account. Until…
This paper addresses the semantics of weighted argumentation graphs that are bipolar, i.e. contain both attacks and supports for arguments. It builds on previous work by Amgoud, Ben-Naim et. al. We study the various characteristics of…
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…
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…
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…
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…
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…
Gradual semantics within abstract argumentation associate a numeric score with every argument in a system, which represents the level of acceptability of this argument, and from which a preference ordering over arguments can be derived.…
There is a growing interest in understanding arguments' strength in Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks (QBAFs). Most existing studies focus on attribution-based methods that explain an argument's strength by assigning importance…
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…