The ASPIC+ framework is intermediate in abstraction between Dung's argumentation framework and concrete instantiating logics. This paper generalises ASPIC+ to accommodate classical logic instantiations, and adopts a new proposal for evaluating extensions: attacks are used to define the notion of conflict-free sets, while the defeats obtained by applying preferences to attacks, are exclusively used to determine the acceptability of arguments. Key properties and rationality postulates are then shown to hold for the new framework.

The concept of "ideal semantics" has been promoted as an alternative basis for skeptical reasoning within abstract argumentation settings. Informally, ideal acceptance not only requires an argument to be skeptically accepted in the traditional sense but further insists that the argument is in an admissible set all of whose arguments are also skeptically accepted. The original proposal was couched in terms of the so-called preferred semantics for abstract argumentation. We argue, in this paper, that the notion of "deal acceptability'' is applicable to arbitrary semantics and justify this claim by showing that standard properties of classical ideal semantics, e.g. unique status, continue to hold in any "reasonable" extension-based semantics. We categorise the relationship between the divers concepts of "ideal extension wrt semantics s" that arise and we present a comprehensive analysis of algorithmic and complexity-theoretic issues.

One criticism often advanced against abstract argumentation frameworks (AFs), is that these consider only one form of interaction between atomic arguments: specifically that an argument attacks another. Attempts to broaden the class of relationships include bipolar frameworks, where arguments support others, and abstract dialectical frameworks (ADFs). The latter, allow "acceptance'' of an argument, x, to be predicated on a given propositional function, C_x, dependent on the corresponding acceptance of its parents, i.e. those y for which occurs. Although offering a richly expressive formalism subsuming both standard and bipolar AFs, an issue that arises with ADFs is whether this expressiveness is achieved in a manner that would be infeasible within standard AFs. Can the semantics used in ADFs be mapped to some AF semantics? How many arguments are needed in an AF to "simulate'' an ADF? We show that (in a formally defined sense) any ADF can be simulated by an AF of similar size and that this translation can be realised by a polynomial time algorithm.

In this paper we conceptualize abstract argumentation in terms of successful and unsuccessful attacks, such that arguments are accepted when there are no successful attacks on them. We characterize the relation between attack semantics and Dung's approach, and we define an SCC recursive algorithm for attack semantics using attack labelings.

We propose a formal model for argumentationbased dialogues between agents, using assumptionbased argumentation (ABA). The model is given in terms of ABA-specific utterances, trees drawn from dialogues and legal-move and outcome functions. We prove a formal connection between these dialogues and argumentation semantics. We illustrate persuasion as an application of the dialogue model.

We address the issue, in cognitive agents, of possible loss of previous information, which later might turn out to be correct when new information becomes available. To this aim, we propose a framework for changing the agent's mind without erasing forever previous information, thus allowing its recovery in case the change turns out to be wrong. In this new framework, a piece of information is represented as an argument which can be more or less accepted depending on the trustworthiness of the agent who proposes it. We adopt possibility theory to represent uncertainty about the information, and to model the fact that information sources can be only partially trusted. The originality of the proposed framework lies in the following two points: (i) argument reinstatement is mirrored in belief reinstatement in order to avoid the loss of previous information; (ii) new incoming information is represented under the form of arguments and it is associated with a plausibility degree depending on the trustworthiness of the information source.

Given an argumentation framework and a group of agents, the individuals may have divergent opinions on the status of the arguments. If the group needsto reach a common position on the argumentation framework, the question is how the individual evaluations can be mapped into a collective one. Thisproblem has been recently investigated by Caminada and Pigozzi. In this paper, we investigate the behaviour of two of such operators from a socialchoice-theoretic point of view. In particular, we study under which conditions these operators are Pareto optimal and whether they are manipulable.

Human experts in scientific fields routinely work with evidence that is noisy and untrustworthy, heuristics that are unproven, and possible conclusions that are contradictory. We present a deployed AI system, Calvin, for cosmogenic isotope dating, a domain that is fraught with these difficult issues. Calvin solves these problems using an argumentation framework and a system of confidence that uses two-dimensional vectors to express the quality of heuristics and the applicability of evidence. The arguments it produces are strikingly similar to published expert arguments.

A geoscientist would be faced with the situation shown on the right of the figure; his task is to deduce the situation shown at the left, along with the processes that were at work and the timeline involved. To accomplish this, a geoscientist first dates a set of rock samples from the present surface, then reasons backward to deduce what process affected the original landform. This is a difficult deduction: geological processes take place over an extremely long period of time, and evidence remaining today is scarce and noisy. Finally, experts in geological dating, like experts in any field, are only human, and can be biased in favor of one theory over another. In the face of these problems, experts form an exhaustive list of possible hypotheses and consider the evidence for and against each one--much like the AI concept of argumentation. Our system to automate this reasoning, Calvin, uses the same argumentation process as experts, comparing the strength of the evidence for and against a set of hypotheses before coming to a conclusion. We collected knowledge about how isotope dating experts reason through interviews with several dozen geoscientists.

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.