An Investigation of Argumentation Framework Characteristics

  title={An Investigation of Argumentation Framework Characteristics},
  author={Josh Murphy and Isabel Sassoon and Michael Luck and Elizabeth Black},
We investigate the relationship between the structural properties of argumentation frameworks and their argument-based characteristics, examining the characteristics of structures of Dung-style frameworks and two generalisations: extended argumentation frameworks and collective-attack frameworks. Our results show that the structural properties of frameworks have an impact on the size of extensions produced, on the proportion of subsets of arguments that determine some topic argument to be… 
2 Citations
Ontology-Based Approach to Organizing the Support for the Analysis of Argumentation in Popular Science Discourse
An approach to modeling and analyzing the argumentation found in popular science literature and the specific features of the proposed argumentation ontology are described and the architecture and functionality of the software system designed for argumentation analysis are presented.
Artificial Intelligence: 17th Russian Conference, RCAI 2019, Ulyanovsk, Russia, October 21–25, 2019, Proceedings
A formal model of social network users who have definite sets of interests in different subjects that can be used not only to describe the interaction of users of social networks, but also in modeling the transfer of heterogeneous information in telecommunications networks.


Generalizations of Dung Frameworks and Their Role in Formal Argumentation
This article provides a short survey of some of the most popular abstract argumentation frameworks available today, highlighting the role of abstract frameworks in the argumentation process, and reviewing the original Dung frameworks and their semantics.
Dynamics of argumentation systems: A division-based method
Change in Abstract Argumentation Frameworks: Adding an Argument
Several properties for this change operation are defined by comparing the new set of extensions to the initial one, these properties are called "structural" when the comparisons are based on set-cardinality or set-inclusion relations.
A Generalization of Dung's Abstract Framework for Argumentation: Arguing with Sets of Attacking Arguments
This paper proposes a generalization of the framework of Dung, which allows for sets of arguments to attack other arguments, and proves that all results in the paper by Dung have an equivalent in this more abstract framework.
Reasoning about preferences in argumentation frameworks
A Pilot Study in Using Argumentation Frameworks for Online Debates
A pilot study in using argumentation frameworks obtained from an online debate to evaluate positions expressed in the debate using a hand-generated graphical representation of the debate as an intermediate representation from which argumentationFrameworks can be extracted, but richer than any existing argumentation framework.
The Added Value of Argumentation
The value of argumentation in reaching agreements is discussed, based on its capability for dealing with conflicts and uncertainty, and a number of open challenges are identified if this potential is to be realised.
On Revising Argumentation-Based Decision Systems
This paper will study how the acceptability of arguments evolves when the decision system is extended by new arguments, and under which conditions an option may change its status when a new argument is received.
Arguing from Similar Positions: An Empirical Analysis
This paper empirically investigates whether the similarity of agents’ arguments affects the dialogue outcome and shows that agents that have similar sets of initially known arguments are less likely to reach an agreement through dialogue than those that have dissimilar sets of initial known arguments.