Some Supplementaries to The Counting Semantics for Abstract Argumentation

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 non-extensions. In order to reason with a specific semantics, one needs to take a credulous or skeptical approach, i.e. an argument is eventually accepted, if it is accepted in one or all extensions, respectively. In our previous work \cite{ref-pu2015counting}, we have proposed a novel semantics, called \emph{counting semantics}, which allows for a more fine-grained assessment to arguments by counting the number of their respective attackers and defenders based on argument graph and argument game. In this paper, we continue our previous work by presenting some supplementaries about how to choose the damaging factor for the counting semantics, and what relationships with some existing approaches, such as Dung's classical semantics, generic gradual valuations. Lastly, an axiomatic perspective on the ranking semantics induced by our counting semantics are presented.Comment: 8 pages, 3 figures, ICTAI 201

Labeled bipolar argumentation frameworks

An essential part of argumentation-based reasoning is to identify arguments in favor and against a statement or query, select the acceptable ones, and then determine whether or not the original statement should be accepted. We present here an abstract framework that considers two independent forms of argument interaction-support and conflict-and is able to represent distinctive information associated with these arguments. This information can enable additional actions such as: (i) a more in-depth analysis of the relations between the arguments; (ii) a representation of the user's posture to help in focusing the argumentative process, optimizing the values of attributes associated with certain arguments; and (iii) an enhancement of the semantics taking advantage of the availability of richer information about argument acceptability. Thus, the classical semantic definitions are enhanced by analyzing a set of postulates they satisfy. Finally, a polynomial-time algorithm to perform the labeling process is introduced, in which the argument interactions are considered.Fil: Escañuela Gonzalez, Melisa Gisselle. Universidad Nacional de Santiago del Estero; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Tucumán; ArgentinaFil: Budan, Maximiliano Celmo David. Universidad Nacional de Santiago del Estero; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Tucumán; ArgentinaFil: Simari, Gerardo. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Bahía Blanca. Instituto de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación. Universidad Nacional del Sur. Departamento de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación. Instituto de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación; ArgentinaFil: Simari, Guillermo Ricardo. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Bahía Blanca. Instituto de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación. Universidad Nacional del Sur. Departamento de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación. Instituto de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación; Argentin

Adapting the DF-QuAD algorithm to bipolar argumentation

We define a quantitative semantics for evaluating the strength of arguments in Bipolar Argumentation frameworks (BAFs) by adapting the Discontinuity-Free QuAD (DF-QuAD) algorithm previously used for evaluating the strength of arguments in Quantitative Argumentation Debates (QuAD) frameworks. We study the relationship between the new semantics and some existing semantics for other argumentation frameworks, as well as some properties of the semantics

Towards a Model of Argument Strength for Bipolar Argumentation Graphs

UID/FIL/00183/2013Bipolar argument graphs represent the structure of complex pro and contra arguments for one or more standpoints. In this article, ampliative and exclusionary principles of evaluating argument strength in bipolar acyclic argumentation graphs are laid out and compared to each other. Argument chains, linked arguments, link attackers and supporters, and convergent arguments are discussed. The strength of conductive arguments is also addressed but it is argued that more work on this type of argument is needed to properly distinguish argument strength from more general value-based components of such argu- ments. The overall conclusion of the article is that there is no justifiably unique solution to the problem of argument strength outside of a particular epistemological framework.publishersversionpublishe

Abstract Games of Argumentation Strategy and Game-Theoretical Argument Strength

We define a generic notion of abstract games of argumentation strategy for (attack-only and bipolar) argumentation frameworks, which are zero-sum games whereby two players put forward sets of arguments and get a reward for their combined choices. The value of these games, in the classical game-theoretic sense, can be used to define measures of (quantitative) game-theoretic strength of arguments, which are different depending on whether either or both players have an “agenda” (i.e. an argument they want to be accepted). We show that this general scheme captures as a special instance a previous proposal in the literature (single agenda, attack-only frameworks), and seamlessly supports the definition of a spectrum of novel measures of game-theoretic strength where both players have an agenda and/or bipolar frameworks are considered. We then discuss the applicability of these instances of game-theoretic strength in different contexts and analyse their basic properties

Aggregating and Analysing Opinions for Argument-based Relations

We present measurements of hadronic resonance, strange and multi-strange particle production in collisions of Xe-Xe and Pb-Pb at the center-of-mass energies of √sNN = 5.44 and 5.02 TeV, respectively, by the ALICE collaboration at the LHC. Particle ratios are presented as a function of multiplicity for K0 s , Λ, Ξ−, Ξ¯ +, Ω−, Ω¯ +, ρ(770)0, K∗(892)0, φ(1020) and Λ(1520). Our results are discussed and compared with predictions of QCD-inspired event generators. Additionally, comparisons with lower energy measurements and smaller systems are also presented