Change in abstract argumentation frameworks (AFs) is a very active topic. Especially, the problem of enforcing a set E of arguments, i.e., ensuring that E is an extension (or a subset of an extension) of a given AF F, has received a particular attention in the recent years. In this paper, we define a new family of enforcement operators, for which enforcement can be achieved by adding new arguments (and attacks) to F (as in previous approaches to enforcement), but also by questioning some attacks (and non-attacks) of F. This family includes previous enforcement operators, but also new ones for which the success of the enforcement operation is guaranteed. We show how the enforcement problem for the operators of the family can be modeled as a pseudo-Boolean optimization problem. Intensive experiments show that the method is practical and that it scales up well.

When a belief state is represented as a probability function P, the resulting belief state of the contraction of a sentence (belief) from the original belief state P can be given by the probabilistic version of the Harper Identity. Specifically, the result of contracting P by a sentence h is taken to be the mixture of two states: the original state P, and the resultant state P* h of revising P by the negation of h. What proportion of P and P* h should be used in this mixture remains an open issue and is largely ignored in literature. In this paper, we first classify different belief states by their stability, and then exploit the quantitative nature of probabilities and combine it with the basic ideas of argumentation theory to determine the mixture proportions. We, therefore, propose a novel approach to probabilistic belief contraction using argumentation.

In this paper we combine two of the most important areas of knowledge representation, namely belief revision and (abstract) argumentation. More precisely, we show how AGM-style expansion and revision operators can be defined for Dung's abstract argumentation frameworks (AFs). Our approach is based on a reformulation of the original AGM postulates for revision in terms of monotonic consequence relations for AFs. The latter are defined via a new family of logics, called Dung logics, which satisfy the important property that ordinary equivalence in these logics coincides with strong equivalence for the respective argumentation semantics. Based on these logics we define expansion as usual via intersection of models. We show the existence of such operators. This is far from trivial and requires to study realizability in the context of Dung logics. We then study revision operators. We show why standard approaches based on a distance measure on models do not work for AFs and present an operator satisfying all postulates for a specific Dung logic.

The paper develops a formal theory of the degree of justification of arguments, which relies solely on the structure of an argumentation framework. The theory is based on a generalisation of Dung's notion of acceptability, making it sensitive to the numbers of attacks and counter-attacks on arguments. Graded generalisations of argumentation semantics are then obtained and studied. The theory is applied by showing how it can arbitrate between competing preferred extensions and how it captures a specific form of accrual in instantiated argumentation.

We develop a formal model for representing such dialogues, and introduce FO A -ATL, a first-order extension of alternating-time logic, for expressing the interplay of strategic and argumentation-theoretic properties. This setting is investigated with respect to the model checking problem, by means of a suitable notion of bisimulation. This notion of bisimulation is also used to shed light on how static properties of argumentation frameworks influence their dynamic behaviour.

Argumentation mining aims to automatically identify structured argument data from unstructured natural language text. This challenging, multi-faceted task is recently gaining a growing attention, especially due to its many potential applications. One particularly important aspect of argumentation mining is claim identification. Most of the current approaches are engineered to address specific domains. However, argumentative sentences are often characterized by common rhetorical structures, independently of the domain. We thus propose a method that exploits structured parsing information to detect claims without resorting to contextual information, and yet achieve a performance comparable to that of state-of-the-art methods that heavily rely on the context.

Model reconciliation has been proposed as a way for an agent to explain its decisions to a human who may have a different understanding of the same planning problem by explaining its decisions in terms of these model differences.However, often the human's mental model (and hence the difference) is not known precisely and such explanations cannot be readily computed.In this paper, we show how the explanation generation process evolves in the presence of such model uncertainty or incompleteness by generating {\em conformant explanations} that are applicable to a set of possible models.We also show how such explanations can contain superfluous informationand how such redundancies can be reduced using conditional explanations to iterate with the human to attain common ground. Finally, we will introduce an anytime version of this approach and empirically demonstrate the trade-offs involved in the different forms of explanations in terms of the computational overhead for the agent and the communication overhead for the human.We illustrate these concepts in three well-known planning domains as well as in a demonstration on a robot involved in a typical search and reconnaissance scenario with an external human supervisor.

Logical argumentation is a well-known approach to modelling nonmonotonic reasoning with conflicting information. In this paper we provide a proof-theoretic study of properties of logical argumentation frameworks. Given some desiderata in terms of rationality postulates, we consider the conditions that an argumentation framework should fulfill for the desiderata to hold. The rationality behind this approach is to assist designers to plug-in'' pre-defined formalisms according to actual needs. This work extends related research on the subject in several ways: more postulates are characterized, a more abstract notion of arguments is considered, and it is shown how the nature of the attack rules (subset attacks versus direct attacks) affects the properties of the whole setting.

This paper discusses how AI models of argumentation can play a role in personalized and participatory medicine. It describes our previous research on natural language generation of argumentation for genetic counseling and a pilot study on risk visualization, and our current research on argumentation mining.

In this paper, we demonstrate how a planner (or a robot as an embodiment of it) can explain its decisions to multiple agents in the loop together considering not only the model that it used to come up with its decisions but also the (often misaligned) models of the same task that the other agents might have had. To do this, we build on our previous work on multi-model explanation generation and extend it to account for settings where there is uncertainty of the robot's model of the explainee and/or there are multiple explainees with different models to explain to. We will illustrate these concepts in a demonstration on a robot involved in a typical search and reconnaissance scenario with another human teammate and an external human supervisor.