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

Generalizations of dung frameworks and their role in formal argumentation

This article provides a short survey of some of the most popular abstract argumentation frameworks available today. The authors present the general idea of abstract argumentation, highlighting the role of abstract frameworks in the argumentation process, and review the original Dung frameworks and their semantics. A discussion of generalizations of these frameworks follows, focusing on structures taking preferences and values into account and approaches in which not only attack but also support relations can be modeled. Finally, the authors review the concept of abstract dialectical frameworks, one of the most general systems for abstract argumentation providing a flexible, principled representation of arbitrary argument relations

Understanding the abstract dialectical framework

Among the most general structures extending the framework by Dung are the abstract dialectical frameworks (ADFs). They come equipped with various types of semantics, with the most prominent – the labeling–based one – being analyzed in the context of computational complexity, instantiations and software support. This makes the abstract dialectical frameworks valuable tools for argumentation. However, there are fewer results available concerning the relation between the ADFs and other argumentation frameworks. In this paper we would like to address this issue by introducing a number of translations from various formalisms into ADFs. The results of our study show the similarities and differences between them, thus promoting the use and understanding of ADFs. Moreover, our analysis also proves their capability to model many of the existing frameworks, including those that go beyond the attack relation. Finally, translations allow other structures to benefit from the research on ADFs in general and from the existing software in particular

Set- and Graph-theoretic Investigations in Abstract Argumentation

Abstract argumentation roots to similar parts in philosophy, linguistics and artificial intelligence. The core (syntactic) notions of argument and attack are commonly visualized via digraphs, as nodes and directed edges, respectively. Semantic evaluation functions then provide a meaning of acceptance (i.e. acceptable sets of arguments also called extensions) for any such abstract argumentation structure. In this thesis, for the very first time, we tackle the questions of acceptance and conflict from a graph- and set-theoretic point of view. We elaborate on the interspace between syntactic conflict/independence (defined by attack structure) and their semantic counterparts (defined by joint acceptance of arguments). Graph theory regards the filters and techniques we use to, respectively, categorize and describe abstract argumentation structures. Set theory regards the issues we have to deal with particularly for non-finite argument sets. For argumentation in the arbitrarily infinite case this thesis can and should be seen as reference work. For the matter of conflicts in abstract argumentation we further provide a solid base and formal framework for future research. All in all, this is a mathematicians view on abstract argumentation, deepening the field of conception and widening the angle of applicability

On the input/output behavior of argumentation frameworks

This paper tackles the fundamental questions arising when looking at argumentation frameworks as interacting components, characterized by an Input/Output behavior, rather than as isolated monolithical entities. This modeling stance arises naturally in some application contexts, like multi-agent systems, but, more importantly, has a crucial impact on several general application-independent issues, like argumentation dynamics, argument summarization and explanation, incremental computation, and inter-formalism translation. Pursuing this research direction, the paper introduces a general modeling approach and provides a comprehensive set of theoretical results putting the intuitive notion of Input/Output behavior of argumentation frameworks on a solid formal ground. This is achieved by combining three main ingredients. First, several novel notions are introduced at the representation level, notably those of argumentation framework with input, of argumentation multipole, and of replacement of multipoles within a traditional argumentation framework. Second, several relevant features of argumentation semantics are identified and formally characterized. In particular, the canonical local function provides an input-aware semantics characterization and a suite of decomposability properties are introduced, concerning the correspondences between semantics outcomes at global and local level. The third ingredient glues the former ones, as it consists of the investigation of some semantics-dependent properties of the newly introduced entities, namely S-equivalence of multipoles, S-legitimacy and S-safeness of replacements, and transparency of a semantics with respect to replacements. Altogether they provide the basis and draw the limits of sound interchangeability of multipoles within traditional frameworks. The paper develops an extensive analysis of all the concepts listed above, covering seven well-known literature semantics and taking into account various, more or less constrained, ways of partitioning an argumentation framework. Diverse examples, taken from the literature, are used to illustrate the application of the results obtained and, finally, an extensive discussion of the related literature is provided

Epistemic graphs for representing and reasoning with positive and negative influences of arguments

This paper introduces epistemic graphs as a generalization of the epistemic approach to probabilistic argumentation. In these graphs, an argument can be believed or disbelieved up to a given degree, thus providing a more fine–grained alternative to the standard Dung's approaches when it comes to determining the status of a given argument. Furthermore, the flexibility of the epistemic approach allows us to both model the rationale behind the existing semantics as well as completely deviate from them when required. Epistemic graphs can model both attack and support as well as relations that are neither support nor attack. The way other arguments influence a given argument is expressed by the epistemic constraints that can restrict the belief we have in an argument with a varying degree of specificity. The fact that we can specify the rules under which arguments should be evaluated and we can include constraints between unrelated arguments permits the framework to be more context–sensitive. It also allows for better modelling of imperfect agents, which can be important in multi–agent applications