相关论文: Cogent argument extensions are weakly admissible b…

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…

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…

The assignment of weights to attacks in a classical Argumentation Framework allows to compute semantics by taking into account the different importance of each argument. We represent a Weighted Argumentation Framework by a non-binary…

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…

Abstract argumentation frameworks (AFs) are one of the most studied formalisms in AI. In this work, we introduce a certain subclass of AFs which we call compact. Given an extension-based semantics, the corresponding compact AFs are…

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…

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.…

In the area of claim-based reasoning in abstract argumentation, a claim-based semantics is said to be concurrent in a given framework if all its variants yield the same extensions. In this note, we show that the concurrence problem with…

Argumentation is an important topic of AI for modelling and reasoning about arguments. In abstract argumentation, we consider directed graphs, so-called argumentation frameworks (AF), that express conflicts between arguments. The semantics…

There are various interesting semantics' (extensions) designed for argumentation frameworks. They enable to assign a meaning, e.g., to odd-length cycles. Our main motivation is to transfer semantics' proposed by Baroni, Giacomin and Guida…

In this paper, we introduce and investigate the concepts of cyclically weakly amenable and point amenable. Then, we compare these concepts with the concepts of weakly amenable and cyclically amenable and find the relation between them. For…

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…

Abstract dialectical frameworks (ADFs) have been introduced as a formalism for modeling and evaluating argumentation allowing general logical satisfaction conditions. Different criteria used to settle the acceptance of arguments are called…

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…

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…

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…

In this paper we show how the defense relation among abstract arguments can be used to encode the reasons for accepting arguments. After introducing a novel notion of defenses and defense graphs, we propose a defense semantics together with…

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…

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…

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…