The Inverse Problem for Argumentation Gradual Semantics

Preprin

Inferring Attack Relations for Gradual Semantics

Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Evaluation of Analogical Arguments by Choquet Integral

Analogical arguments are a special type of inductive arguments, whereby perceived similarities are used as a basis to infersome further similarity that has yet to be observed. Although they arenot deductively valid, they may yield conclusions that are very prob-ably true, and may be more cogent than others in persuasive contexts.This paper tackles the question of their evaluation. It starts by dis-cussing their features, how they can be attacked/supported, and keyconsiderations for their evaluation. It argues in particular for the needof semantics that are able to take into account possible interactions(synergies, redundancies) between attackers (respectively support-ers) of any analogical argument. It presents principles that serve asguidelines for choosing candidate semantics. Then, it shows that ex-isting (extension, gradual, ranking) semantics are not suitable as theymay lead to inaccurate assessments. Finally, it redefines three exist-ing semantics using the well-known Choquet Integral for aggregatingattackers/supporter, and discusses their properties