Skip to search formSkip to main contentSkip to account menu

A Reasoning Model Based on the Production of Acceptable Arguments

TLDR
The argumentation framework proposed by Dung is refined by taking into account preference relations between arguments in order to integrate two complementary points of view on the concept of acceptability, which refines previous works by Prakken and Sartor.
View on Springer (opens in a new tab)

On the Acceptability of Arguments in Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks

TLDR
This paper extends the basic abstract argumentation framework, by taking into account two independent kinds of interaction between arguments: a defeat relation and a support relation, and proposes new semantics defined from characteristic properties that a set of arguments must satisfy in order to be an output of the argumentation process.
View via Publisher (opens in a new tab)

Inconsistency Management and Prioritized Syntax-Based Entailment

TLDR
This new approach leads to a nonmonotonic inference which satisfies the "rationality" property while solving the problem of blocking of property inheritance and differs from and improves previous equivalent approaches such as Gardenfors and Makinson's expectation-based inference, Pearl's System Z and possibilistic logic.
View Paper (opens in a new tab)

On bipolarity in argumentation frameworks

TLDR
This article shows on various applications, and with some formal definitions, that bipolarity appears in argumentation (in some cases if not always) and can be used in each step of this process under different forms.
View on Wiley (opens in a new tab)

Graduality in Argumentation

TLDR
The 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.
View PDF on arXiv (opens in a new tab)

Bipolarity in argumentation graphs: Towards a better understanding

View via Publisher (opens in a new tab)

Inferring from Inconsistency in Preference-Based Argumentation Frameworks

TLDR
This paper investigates preference-based acceptability, the basic idea is to accept undefeated arguments and also arguments that are preferred to their defeaters, and defines argumentation frameworks based on that preference- based acceptability.
View on Springer (opens in a new tab)

Coalitions of arguments: A tool for handling bipolar argumentation frameworks

TLDR
Dung's well‐known semantics can be used on this meta‐argumentation framework where conflicts occur between sets of arguments, characterized as coalitions of supporting arguments.
View on Wiley (opens in a new tab)

On the Acceptability of Arguments in Preference-based Argumentation

TLDR
Pursuing previous work on preference-based argumentation principles, this paper enforce both points of view by taking into account preference orderings for comparing arguments, and illustrates in the context of reasoning with stratified knowledge bases.
View PDF on arXiv (opens in a new tab)

On Decision Problems Related to the Preferred Semantics for Argumentation Frameworks

TLDR
This article looks at the credulous and the sceptical decision problems under Dung’s preferred semantics, that is, the problems of deciding if an argument belongs to one or to every preferred extension of an argumentation framework.
View via Publisher (opens in a new tab)
...
By clicking accept or continuing to use the site, you agree to the terms outlined in our Privacy Policy (opens in a new tab), Terms of Service (opens in a new tab), and Dataset License (opens in a new tab)