Argumentation games for admissibility and cogency criteria

In this work, we develop a game-theoretic framework in which pro and con arguments are put forward. This framework intends to capture winning strategies for different defense criteria. In turn, each possible extension semantics satisfies a particular defense criterion. To ensure that only semantics satisfying given criteria are obtained, protocols for playing have to be defined, being the ensuing winning strategies full characterizations of the corresponding criteria. Admissibility and strong admissibility are two of those criteria proposed in the literature for the evaluation of extension semantics; here, we also introduce two weaker criteria, pairwise and weak cogency, for the evaluation of non-admissible semantics, and we define specific game protocolscapturing them.Fil: Bodanza, Gustavo Adrian. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Bahía Blanca. Instituto de Investigaciones Económicas y Sociales del Sur. Universidad Nacional del Sur. Departamento de Economía. Instituto de Investigaciones Económicas y Sociales del Sur; ArgentinaFil: Tohmé, Fernando Abel. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Bahía Blanca. Instituto de Investigaciones Económicas y Sociales del Sur. Universidad Nacional del Sur. Departamento de Economía. Instituto de Investigaciones Económicas y Sociales del Sur; ArgentinaFil: Simari, Guillermo Ricardo. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Bahía Blanca. Planta Piloto de Ingeniería Química. Universidad Nacional del Sur. Planta Piloto de Ingeniería Química; Argentin

On the responsibility for undecisiveness in preferred and stable labellings in abstract argumentation

Different semantics of abstract Argumentation Frameworks (AFs) provide different levels of decisiveness for reasoning about the acceptability of conflicting arguments. The stable semantics is useful for applications requiring a high level of decisiveness, as it assigns to each argument the label “accepted” or the label “rejected”. Unfortunately, stable labellings are not guaranteed to exist, thus raising the question as to which parts of AFs are responsible for the non-existence. In this paper, we address this question by investigating a more general question concerning preferred labellings (which may be less decisive than stable labellings but are always guaranteed to exist), namely why a given preferred labelling may not be stable and thus undecided on some arguments. In particular, (1) we give various characterisations of parts of an AF, based on the given preferred labelling, and (2) we show that these parts are indeed responsible for the undecisiveness if the preferred labelling is not stable. We then use these characterisations to explain the non-existence of stable labellings. We present two types of characterisations, based on labellings that are more (or equally) committed than the given preferred labelling on the one hand, and based on the structure of the given AF on the other, and compare the respective AF parts deemed responsible. To prove that our characterisations indeed yield responsible parts, we use a notion of enforcement of labels through structural revision, by means of which the preferred labelling of the given AF can be turned into a stable labelling of the structurally revised AF. Rather than prescribing how this structural revision is carried out, we focus on the enforcement of labels and leave the engineering of the revision open to fulfil differing requirements of applications and information available to users

Developments in abstract and assumption-based argumentation and their application in logic programming

Logic Programming (LP) and Argumentation are two paradigms for knowledge representation and reasoning under incomplete information. Even though the two paradigms share common features, they constitute mostly separate areas of research. In this thesis, we present novel developments in Argumentation, in particular in Assumption-Based Argumentation (ABA) and Abstract Argumentation (AA), and show how they can 1) extend the understanding of the relationship between the two paradigms and 2) provide solutions to problematic reasoning outcomes in LP. More precisely, we introduce assumption labellings as a novel way to express the semantics of ABA and prove a more straightforward relationship with LP semantics than found in previous work. Building upon these correspondence results, we apply methods for argument construction and conflict detection from ABA, and for conflict resolution from AA, to construct justifications of unexpected or unexplained LP solutions under the answer set semantics. We furthermore characterise reasons for the non-existence of stable semantics in AA and apply these findings to characterise different scenarios in which the computation of meaningful solutions in LP under the answer set semantics fails.Open Acces

Investigating subclasses of abstract dialectical frameworks

Dialectical frameworks (ADFs) are generalizations of Dung argumentation frameworks where arbitrary relationships among arguments can be formalized. This additional expressibility comes with the price of higher computational complexity, thus an understanding of potentially easier subclasses is essential. Compared to Dung argumentation frameworks, where several subclasses such as acyclic and symmetric frameworks are well understood, there has been no in-depth analysis for ADFs in such direction yet (with the notable exception of bipolar ADFs). In this work, we introduce certain subclasses of ADFs and investigate their properties. In particular, we show that for acyclic ADFs, the different semantics coincide. On the other hand, we show that the concept of symmetry is less powerful for ADFs and further restrictions are required to achieve results that are similar to the known ones for Dung's frameworks. A particular such subclass (support-free symmetric ADFs) turns out to be closely related to argumentation frameworks with collective attacks (SETAFs); we investigate this relation in detail and obtain as a by-product that even for SETAFs symmetry is less powerful than for AFs. We also discuss the role of odd-length cycles in the subclasses we have introduced. Finally, we analyse the expressiveness of the ADF subclasses we introduce in terms of signatures

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

SCC-recursiveness: a general schema for argumentation semantics

AbstractIn argumentation theory, Dung's abstract framework provides a unifying view of several alternative semantics based on the notion of extension. In this context, we propose a general recursive schema for argumentation semantics, based on decomposition along the strongly connected components of the argumentation framework. We introduce the fundamental notion of SCC-recursiveness and we show that all Dung's admissibility-based semantics are SCC-recursive, and therefore a special case of our schema. On these grounds, we argue that the concept of SCC-recursiveness plays a fundamental role in the study and definition of argumentation semantics. In particular, the space of SCC-recursive semantics provides an ideal basis for the investigation of new proposals: starting from the analysis of several examples where Dung's preferred semantics gives rise to questionable results, we introduce four novel SCC-recursive semantics, able to overcome the limitations of preferred semantics, while differing in other respects

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