Related papers: Tenability and Weak Semantics: Modeling Non-unifor…

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…

Dung's abstract framework for argumentation enables a study of the interactions between arguments based solely on an ``attack'' binary relation on the set of arguments. Various ways to solve conflicts between contradictory pieces of…

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…

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…

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 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…

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…

In Dung's abstract argumentation, arguments are either acceptable or unacceptable, given a chosen notion of acceptability. This gives a coarse way to compare arguments. In this paper, we propose a counting approach for a more fine-gained…

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…

Recently, Strength-based Argumentation Frameworks (StrAFs) have been proposed to model situations where some quantitative strength is associated with arguments. In this setting, the notion of accrual corresponds to sets of arguments that…

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 show that preferred, stable, complete, and grounded semantics satisfy attack removal monotonicity. This means that if an attack from b to a is removed, the status of a cannot worsen, e.g. if a was skeptically accepted, it cannot become…

Abstract argumentation provides us with methods such as gradual and Dung semantics with which to evaluate arguments after potential attacks by other arguments. Some of these methods can take intrinsic strengths of arguments as input, with…

The notion of stability in a structured argumentation setup characterizes situations where the acceptance status associated with a given literal will not be impacted by any future evolution of this setup. In this paper, we abstract away…

Cycles of attacking arguments pose non-trivial issues in Dung style argumentation theory, apparent behavioural difference between odd and even length cycles being a notable one. While a few methods were proposed for treating them, to - in…

Argumentation is a promising model for reasoning with uncertain knowledge. The key concept of acceptability enables to differentiate arguments and counterarguments: The certainty of a proposition can then be evaluated through the most…

Dung's abstract argumentation frameworks model acceptability solely in terms of an attack relation, thereby conflating two conceptually distinct aspects of argumentative reasoning: direct conflict between arguments and the structural…

Argumentation frameworks, consisting of arguments and an attack relation representing conflicts, are fundamental for formally studying reasoning under conflicting information. We use methods from mathematical logic, specifically…

One of the most prominent tools for abstract argumentation is the Dung's framework, AF for short. It is accompanied by a variety of semantics including grounded, complete, preferred and stable. Although powerful, AFs have their…