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

Semantics for Evidence-Based Argumentation

Postprin

Empirical Evaluation of Abstract Argumentation: Supporting the Need for Bipolar and Probabilistic Approaches

In dialogical argumentation it is often assumed that the involved parties always correctly identify the intended statements posited by each other, realize all of the associated relations, conform to the three acceptability states (accepted, rejected, undecided), adjust their views when new and correct information comes in, and that a framework handling only attack relations is sufficient to represent their opinions. Although it is natural to make these assumptions as a starting point for further research, removing them or even acknowledging that such removal should happen is more challenging for some of these concepts than for others. Probabilistic argumentation is one of the approaches that can be harnessed for more accurate user modelling. The epistemic approach allows us to represent how much a given argument is believed by a given person, offering us the possibility to express more than just three agreement states. It is equipped with a wide range of postulates, including those that do not make any restrictions concerning how initial arguments should be viewed, thus potentially being more adequate for handling beliefs of the people that have not fully disclosed their opinions in comparison to Dung's semantics. The constellation approach can be used to represent the views of different people concerning the structure of the framework we are dealing with, including cases in which not all relations are acknowledged or when they are seen differently than intended. Finally, bipolar argumentation frameworks can be used to express both positive and negative relations between arguments. In this paper we describe the results of an experiment in which participants judged dialogues in terms of agreement and structure. We compare our findings with the aforementioned assumptions as well as with the constellation and epistemic approaches to probabilistic argumentation and bipolar argumentation

Towards a transparent deliberation protocol inspired from supply chain collaborative planning

International audienceIn this paper we propose a new deliberation process based on argumentation and bipolar decision making in a context of agreed common knowledge and priorities together with private preferences. This work is inspired from the supply chain management domain and more precisely by the "Collaborative Planning, Forecasting and Replenishment" model which aims at selecting a procurement plan in collaborative supply chains

Bipolarity in argumentation graphs: Towards a better understanding

Edited by Benferhat Salem, Philippe LerayInternational audienceDifferent abstract argumentation frameworks have been used for various applications within multi-agents systems. Among them, bipolar frameworks make use of both attack and support relations between arguments. However, there is no single interpretation of the support, and the handling of bipolarity cannot avoid a deeper analysis of the notion of support.In this paper we consider three recent proposals for specializing the support relation in abstract argumentation: the deductive support, the necessary support and the evidential support. These proposals have been developed independently within different frameworks. We restate these proposals in a common setting, which enables us to undertake a comparative study of the modellings obtained for the three variants of the support. We highlight relationships and differences between these variants, namely a kind of duality between the deductive and the necessary interpretations of the support

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