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

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

Arguing Using Opponent Models

Peer reviewedPostprin

Balancing between cognitive and semantic acceptability of arguments

This paper addresses the problem concerning approximating human cognitions and semantic extensions regarding acceptability status of arguments. We introduce three types of logical equilibriums in terms of satisfiability, entailment and semantic equivalence in order to analyse balance of human cognitions and semantic extensions. The generality of our proposal is shown by the existence conditions of equilibrium solutions. The applicability of our proposal is demonstrated by the fact that it detects a flaw of argumentation actually taking place in an online forum and suggests its possible resolution

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

The Principle-Based Approach to Abstract Argumentation Semantics

The principle-based or axiomatic approach is a methodology to choose an argumentation semantics for a particular application, and to guide the search for new argumentation semantics. This article gives a complete classification of the fifteen main alternatives for argumentation semantics using the twenty-seven main principles discussed in the literature on abstract argumentation, extending Baroni and Giacomin’s original classification with other semantics and principles proposed in the literature. It also lays the foundations for a study of representation and (im)possibility results for abstract argumentation, and for a principle-based approach for extended argumentation such as bipolar frameworks, preference-based frameworks, abstract dialectical frameworks, weighted frameworks, and input/output frameworks