"Minimal defence": a refinement of the preferred semantics for argumentation frameworks

Dung's abstract framework for argumentation enables a study of the interactions between arguments based solely on an ``attack'' binary relation on the set of arguments. Various ways to solve conflicts between contradictory pieces of information have been proposed in the context of argumentation, nonmonotonic reasoning or logic programming, and can be captured by appropriate semantics within Dung's framework. A common feature of these semantics is that one can always maximize in some sense the set of acceptable arguments. We propose in this paper to extend Dung's framework in order to allow for the representation of what we call ``restricted'' arguments: these arguments should only be used if absolutely necessary, that is, in order to support other arguments that would otherwise be defeated. We modify Dung's preferred semantics accordingly: a set of arguments becomes acceptable only if it contains a minimum of restricted arguments, for a maximum of unrestricted arguments.Comment: 8 pages, 3 figure

Graduality in Argumentation

Argumentation is based on the exchange and valuation of interacting arguments, followed by the selection of the most acceptable of them (for example, in order to take a decision, to make a choice). Starting from the framework proposed by Dung in 1995, our purpose is to introduce 'graduality' in the selection of the best arguments, i.e., to be able to partition the set of the arguments in more than the two usual subsets of 'selected' and 'non-selected' arguments in order to represent different levels of selection. Our basic idea is that an argument is all the more acceptable if it can be preferred to its attackers. First, we discuss general principles underlying a 'gradual' valuation of arguments based on their interactions. Following these principles, we define several valuation models for an abstract argumentation system. Then, we introduce 'graduality' in the concept of acceptability of arguments. We propose new acceptability classes and a refinement of existing classes taking advantage of an available 'gradual' valuation

Abstract Argumentation / Persuasion / Dynamics

The act of persuasion, a key component in rhetoric argumentation, may be viewed as a dynamics modifier. We extend Dung's frameworks with acts of persuasion among agents, and consider interactions among attack, persuasion and defence that have been largely unheeded so far. We characterise basic notions of admissibilities in this framework, and show a way of enriching them through, effectively, CTL (computation tree logic) encoding, which also permits importation of the theoretical results known to the logic into our argumentation frameworks. Our aim is to complement the growing interest in coordination of static and dynamic argumentation.Comment: Arisaka R., Satoh K. (2018) Abstract Argumentation / Persuasion / Dynamics. In: Miller T., Oren N., Sakurai Y., Noda I., Savarimuthu B., Cao Son T. (eds) PRIMA 2018: Principles and Practice of Multi-Agent Systems. PRIMA 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 11224. Springer, Cha

Evaluation of an offshore disposal site in then Loire estuary through field monitoring and 3D numerical modelling

Water Qualit

Abstract Games of Argumentation Strategy and Game-Theoretical Argument Strength

We define a generic notion of abstract games of argumentation strategy for (attack-only and bipolar) argumentation frameworks, which are zero-sum games whereby two players put forward sets of arguments and get a reward for their combined choices. The value of these games, in the classical game-theoretic sense, can be used to define measures of (quantitative) game-theoretic strength of arguments, which are different depending on whether either or both players have an “agenda” (i.e. an argument they want to be accepted). We show that this general scheme captures as a special instance a previous proposal in the literature (single agenda, attack-only frameworks), and seamlessly supports the definition of a spectrum of novel measures of game-theoretic strength where both players have an agenda and/or bipolar frameworks are considered. We then discuss the applicability of these instances of game-theoretic strength in different contexts and analyse their basic properties

An Axiomatic Approach to Support in Argumentation

International audienceIn the context of bipolar argumentation (argumentation with two kinds of interaction, attacks and supports), we present an axiomatic approach for taking into account a special interpretation of the support relation, the necessary support. We propose constraints that should be imposed to a bipolar argumentation system using this interpretation. Some of these constraints concern the new attack relations, others concern acceptability. We extend basic Dung’s framework in different ways in order to propose frameworks suitable for encoding these constraints. By the way, we propose a formal study of properties of necessary support

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