On the Difference between Assumption-Based Argumentation and Abstract Argumentation

Preprin

Attacker and Defender Counting Approach for Abstract Argumentation

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 assessment to arguments by counting the number of their respective attackers and defenders based on argument graph and argument game. An argument is more acceptable if the proponent puts forward more number of defenders for it and the opponent puts forward less number of attackers against it. We show that our counting model has two well-behaved properties: normalization and convergence. Then, we define a counting semantics based on this model, and investigate some general properties of the semantics.Comment: 7 pages, 2 figures;conference CogSci 201

Strong Admissibility Revisited

Preprin

On the Difference between Assumption-Based Argumentation and Abstract Argumentation

Acknowledgements The first author has been supported by the National Research Fund, Luxembourg (LAAMI project) and by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC, UK), grant ref. EP/J012084/1 (SAsSy project). The second and third authors have been supported by CNPq (Universal 2012 - Proc. no. 473110/2012-1), CAPES (PROCAD 2009) and CNPq/CAPES (Casadinho/PROCAD 2011).Peer reviewedPostprin

Defense semantics of argumentation: encoding reasons for accepting arguments

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 a new notion of defense equivalence of argument graphs, and compare defense equivalence with standard equivalence and strong equivalence, respectively. Then, based on defense semantics, we define two kinds of reasons for accepting arguments, i.e., direct reasons and root reasons, and a notion of root equivalence of argument graphs. Finally, we show how the notion of root equivalence can be used in argumentation summarization.Comment: 14 pages, first submitted on April 30, 2017; 16 pages, revised in terms of the comments from MIREL2017 on August 03, 201

Extension-based Semantics of Abstract Dialectical Frameworks

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 shortcomings, which led to development of numerous enrichments. Among the most general ones are the abstract dialectical frameworks, also known as the ADFs. They make use of the so-called acceptance conditions to represent arbitrary relations. This level of abstraction brings not only new challenges, but also requires addressing existing problems in the field. One of the most controversial issues, recognized not only in argumentation, concerns the support cycles. In this paper we introduce a new method to ensure acyclicity of the chosen arguments and present a family of extension-based semantics built on it. We also continue our research on the semantics that permit cycles and fill in the gaps from the previous works. Moreover, we provide ADF versions of the properties known from the Dung setting. Finally, we also introduce a classification of the developed sub-semantics and relate them to the existing labeling-based approaches.Comment: To appear in the Proceedings of the 15th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning (NMR 2014

On the Equivalence between Logic Programming Semantics and Argumentation Semantics

Publisher PD