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

SCF2 - an Argumentation Semantics for Rational Human Judgments on Argument Acceptability

In abstract argumentation theory, many argumentation semantics have been proposed for evaluating argumentation frameworks. This paper is based on the following research question: Which semantics corresponds well to what humans consider a rational judgment on the acceptability of arguments? There are two systematic ways to approach this research question: A normative perspective is provided by the principle-based approach, in which semantics are evaluated based on their satisfaction of various normatively desirable principles. A descriptive perspective is provided by the empirical approach, in which cognitive studies are conducted to determine which semantics best predicts human judgments about arguments. In this paper, we combine both approaches to motivate a new argumentation semantics called SCF2. For this purpose, we introduce and motivate two new principles and show that no semantics from the literature satisfies both of them. We define SCF2 and prove that it satisfies both new principles. Furthermore, we discuss findings of a recent empirical cognitive study that provide additional support to SCF2

Preference in Abstract Argumentation

Consider an argument A that is attacked by an argument B, while A is preferred to B. Existing approaches will either ignore the attack or reverse it. In this paper we introduce a new reduction of preference and attack to defeat, based on the idea that in such a case, instead of ignoring the attack, the preference is ignored. We compare this new reduction with the two existing ones using a principle-based approach, for the four Dung 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. For this analysis, we also introduce a fourth reduction, and a semantics for preference-based argumentation based on extension selection. Our classification of twenty alternatives for preference-based abstract argumentation semantics using six principles suggests that our new reduction has some advantages over the existing ones, in the sense that if the set of preferences increases, the sets of accepted arguments increase as well

Preference in Abstract Argumentation

International audienceConsider an argument A that is attacked by an argument B, while A is preferred to B. Existing approaches will either ignore the attack or reverse it. In this paper we introduce a new reduction of preference and attack to defeat, based on the idea that in such a case, instead of ignoring the attack, the preference is ignored. We compare this new reduction with the two existing ones using a principle-based approach, for the four Dung semantics. The principle-based or axiomatic approach is a methodology to choose an argumentation semantics for a particular applica- tion, and to guide the search for new argumentation semantics. For this analysis, we also introduce a fourth reduction, and a semantics for preference-based argu- mentation based on extension selection. Our classification of twenty alternatives for preference-based abstract argumentation semantics using six principles suggests that our new reduction has some advantages over the existing ones, in the sense that if the set of preferences increases, the sets of accepted arguments increase as well

Abstract and Concrete Decision Graphs for Choosing Extensions of Argumentation Frameworks - Technical Report

Most argumentation semantics allow for multiple extensions, which raises the question of how to choose among extensions. We propose to study this question as a decision problem. Inspired by decision trees commonly used in economics, we introduce the notion of a decision graph for deciding between the multiple extensions of a given AF in a given semantics. We distinguish between abstract decision graphs and concrete instantiations thereof. Inspired by the principle-based approach to argumentation, we formulate two principles that mappings from argumentation frameworks to decision graphs should satisfy, the principle of decision-graph directionality and the one of directional decision-making. We then propose a concrete instantiation of decision graphs, which satisfies one of these principles. Finally, we discuss the potential for further research based on this novel methodology

Abstract and Concrete Decision Graphs for Choosing Extensions of Argumentation Frameworks

Most argumentation semantics allow for multiple extensions, which raises the question of how to choose among extensions. We propose to study this question as a decision problem. Inspired by decision trees commonly used in economics, we introduce the notion of a decision graph for deciding between the multiple extensions of a given AF in a given semantics. We distinguish between abstract decision graphs and concrete instantiations thereof. Inspired by the principle-based approach to argumentation, we formulate two principles that mappings from argumentation frameworks to decision graphs should satisfy, the principles of decision-graph directionality and that of directional decision-making. We then propose a concrete instantiation of decision graphs, which satisfies one of these principles. Finally, we discuss the potential for further research based on this novel methodology

Extending Modular Semantics for Bipolar Weighted Argumentation (Technical Report)

Weighted bipolar argumentation frameworks offer a tool for decision support and social media analysis. Arguments are evaluated by an iterative procedure that takes initial weights and attack and support relations into account. Until recently, convergence of these iterative procedures was not very well understood in cyclic graphs. Mossakowski and Neuhaus recently introduced a unification of different approaches and proved first convergence and divergence results. We build up on this work, simplify and generalize convergence results and complement them with runtime guarantees. As it turns out, there is a tradeoff between semantics' convergence guarantees and their ability to move strength values away from the initial weights. We demonstrate that divergence problems can be avoided without this tradeoff by continuizing semantics. Semantically, we extend the framework with a Duality property that assures a symmetric impact of attack and support relations. We also present a Java implementation of modular semantics and explain the practical usefulness of the theoretical ideas

Properties of ABA+ for Non-Monotonic Reasoning

We investigate properties of ABA+, a formalism that extends the well studied structured argumentation formalism Assumption-Based Argumentation (ABA) with a preference handling mechanism. In particular, we establish desirable properties that ABA+ semantics exhibit. These pave way to the satisfaction by ABA+ of some (arguably) desirable principles of preference handling in argumentation and nonmonotonic reasoning, as well as non-monotonic inference properties of ABA+ under various semantics.Comment: This is a revised version of the paper presented at the worksho