Inference from controversial arguments

International audienceWe present new careful semantics within Dung's theory of argumentation. Under such careful semantics, two arguments cannot belong to the same extension whenever one of them indirectly attacks a third argument while the other one indirectly defends the third.We argue that our semantics lead to a better handling of controversial arguments than Dung's ones in some settings. We compare the careful inference relations induced by our semantics w.r.t. cautiousness; we also compare them with the inference relations induced by Dung's semantic

Automata for infinite argumentation structures

The theory of abstract argumentation frameworks (afs) has, in the main, focused on finite structures, though there are many significant contexts where argumentation can be regarded as a process involving infinite objects. To address this limitation, in this paper we propose a novel approach for describing infinite afs using tools from formal language theory. In particular, the possibly infinite set of arguments is specified through the language recognized by a deterministic finite automaton while a suitable formalism, called attack expression, is introduced to describe the relation of attack between arguments. The proposed approach is shown to satisfy some desirable properties which cannot be achieved through other “naive” uses of formal languages. In particular, the approach is shown to be expressive enough to capture (besides any arbitrary finite structure) a large variety of infinite afs including two major examples from previous literature and two sample cases from the domains of multi-agent negotiation and ambient intelligence. On the computational side, we show that several decision and construction problems which are known to be polynomial time solvable in finite afs are decidable in the context of the proposed formalism and we provide the relevant algorithms. Moreover we obtain additional results concerning the case of finitaryafs

SCC-recursiveness: a general schema for argumentation semantics

AbstractIn argumentation theory, Dung's abstract framework provides a unifying view of several alternative semantics based on the notion of extension. In this context, we propose a general recursive schema for argumentation semantics, based on decomposition along the strongly connected components of the argumentation framework. We introduce the fundamental notion of SCC-recursiveness and we show that all Dung's admissibility-based semantics are SCC-recursive, and therefore a special case of our schema. On these grounds, we argue that the concept of SCC-recursiveness plays a fundamental role in the study and definition of argumentation semantics. In particular, the space of SCC-recursive semantics provides an ideal basis for the investigation of new proposals: starting from the analysis of several examples where Dung's preferred semantics gives rise to questionable results, we introduce four novel SCC-recursive semantics, able to overcome the limitations of preferred semantics, while differing in other respects

Extending abstract argumentation systems theory

AbstractIn this paper, we extend the theory of abstract argumentation systems proposed by Vreeswijk (1997). This framework stands at a high abstraction level and provides a general model for argumentation activity. However, the theory reveals an inherent limitation in that the premises of the argumentation process are assumed to be indefeasible, and this introduces the need of an implicit constraint on the strength of the arguments, in order to preserve correctness. In many application contexts the information available to start reasoning is not guaranteed to be completely reliable, therefore it is natural to assume that premises can be discarded during the argumentation process. We extend the theory by admitting that premises can be defeated and relaxing the implicit assumption about their strength.Besides fixing the technical problems related to this hidden assumption (e.g., ensuring that warranted arguments are compatible), our proposal provides an integrated model for belief revision and defeasible reasoning, confirming the suitability of argumentation as a general model for the activity of intelligent reasoning in presence of various kinds of uncertainty