In this paper, we investigate the revision of argumentation systems à la Dung. We focus on revision as minimal change of the arguments status. Contrarily to most of the previous works on the topic, the addition of new arguments is not allowed in the revision process, so that the revised system has to be obtained by modifying the attack relation only. We introduce a language of revision formulae which is expressive enough for enabling the representation of complex conditions on the acceptability of arguments in the revised system. We show how AGM belief revision postulates can be translated to the case of argumentation systems. We provide a corresponding representation theorem in terms of minimal change of the arguments statuses. Several distance-based revision operators satisfying the postulates are also pointed out, along with some methods to build revised argumentation systems. We also discuss some computational aspects of those methods.

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.

Attributing a cyber-operation through the use of multiple pieces of technical evidence (i.e., malware reverse-engineering and source tracking) and conventional intelligence sources (i.e., human or signals intelligence) is a difficult problem not only due to the effort required to obtain evidence, but the ease with which an adversary can plant false evidence. In this paper, we introduce a formal reasoning system called the InCA (Intelligent Cyber Attribution) framework that is designed to aid an analyst in the attribution of a cyber-operation even when the available information is conflicting and/or uncertain. Our approach combines argumentation-based reasoning, logic programming, and probabilistic models to not only attribute an operation but also explain to the analyst why the system reaches its conclusions.

A Dung argumentation framework (AF) is a pair (A,R): A is a set of abstract arguments and R ⊆ A×A is a binary relation, so-called the attack relation, for capturing the conflicting arguments. Labeling based algorithms for enumerating extensions (i.e. sets of acceptable arguments) have been set out such that arguments (i.e. elements of A) are the only subject for labeling. In this paper we present implemented algorithms for listing extensions by labeling attacks (i.e. elements of R) along with arguments. Specifically, these algorithms are concerned with enumerating all extensions of an AF under a number of argumentation semantics: preferred, stable, complete, semi stable, stage, ideal and grounded. Our algorithms have impact, in particular, on enumerating extensions of AF-extended models that allow attacks on attacks. To demonstrate this impact, we instantiate our algorithms for an example of such models: namely argumentation frameworks with recursive attacks (AFRA), thereby we end up with unified algorithms that enumerate extensions of any AF/AFRA.

Properties like logical closure and consistency are important properties in any logical reasoning system. Caminada and Amgoud showed that not every logic-based argument system satisfies these relevant properties. But under conditions like closure under contraposition or transposition of the monotonic part of the underlying logic, ASPIC-like systems satisfy these properties. In contrast, the logical closure and consistency properties are not well-understood for other well-known and widely applied systems like logic programming or assumption based argumentation. Though conditions like closure under contraposition or transposition seem intuitive in ASPIC-like systems, they rule out many sensible ASPIC-like systems that satisfy both properties of closure and consistency. We present a new condition referred to as the self-contradiction axiom that guarantees the consistency property in both ASPIC-like and assumption-based systems and is implied by both properties of closure under contraposition or transposition. We develop a logic-associated abstract argumentation framework, by associating abstract argumentation with abstract logics to represent the conclusions of arguments. We show that logic-associated abstract argumentation frameworks capture ASPIC-like systems (without preferences) and assumption-based argumentation. We present two simple and natural properties of compactness and cohesion in logic-associated abstract argumentation frameworks and show that they capture the logical closure and consistency properties. We demonstrate that in both assumption-based argumentation and ASPIC-like systems, cohesion follows naturally from the self-contradiction axiom. We further give a translation from ASPIC-like systems (without preferences) into equivalent assumption-based systems that keeps the self-contradiction axiom invariant.

This paper presents a novel SAT-based approach for the computation of extensions in abstract argumentation, with focus on preferred semantics, and an empirical evaluation of its performances. The approach is based on the idea of reducing the problem of computing complete extensions to a SAT problem and then using a depth-first search method to derive preferred extensions. The proposed approach has been tested using two distinct SAT solvers and compared with three state-of-the-art systems for preferred extension computation. It turns out that the proposed approach delivers significantly better performances in the large majority of the considered cases.

Probabilistic abstract argumentation combines Dung's abstract argumentation framework with probability theory in order to model uncertainty in argumentation. In this setting, we address the fundamental problem of computing the probability that a set of arguments is an extension according to a given semantics. We focus on the most popular semantics (i.e., admissible, stable, complete, grounded, preferred, ideal), and show the following dichotomy result: computing the probability that a set of arguments is an extension is either PTIME or FP #P -complete depending on the semantics adopted. Our PTIME results are particularly interesting, as they hold for some semantics for which no polynomial-time technique was known so far.

My thesis work aims to study change operations for argumentation systems, especially for abstract argumentation systems à la Dung. This paper presents a first study of the AGM revision adapted to the case of argumentation. We also sketch future research works planned to complete the one already achieved.

We present various new concepts and results related to abstract dialectical frameworks (ADFs), a powerful generalization of Dung's argumentation frameworks (AFs). In particular, we show how the existing definitions of stable and preferred semantics which are restricted to the subcase of so-called bipolar ADFs can be improved and generalized to arbitrary frameworks. Furthermore, we introduce preference handling methods for ADFs, allowing for both reasoning with and about preferences. Finally, we present an implementation based on an encoding in answer set programming.

This paper deals with the issue of strategic argumentation in the setting of Dung-style abstract argumentation theory. Such reasoning takes place through the use of opponent models—recursive representations of an agent’s knowledge and beliefs regarding the opponent’s knowledge. Using such models, we present three approaches to reasoning. The first directly utilises the opponent model to identify the best move to advance in a dialogue. The second extends our basic approach through the use of quantitative uncertainty over the opponent’s model. The final extension introduces virtual arguments into the opponent’s reasoning process. Such arguments are unknown to the agent, but presumed to exist and interact with known arguments. They are therefore used to add a primitive notion of risk to the agent’s reasoning. We have implemented our models and we have performed an empirical analysis that shows that this added expressivity improves the performance of an agent in a dialogue.