Argumentation Frameworks (AFs) provide a fruitful basis for exploring issues of defeasible reasoning. Their power largely derives from the abstract nature of the arguments within the framework, where arguments are atomic nodes in an undifferentiated relation of attack. This abstraction conceals different conceptions of argument, and concrete instantiations encounter difficulties as a result of conflating these conceptions. We distinguish three distinct senses of the term. We provide an approach to instantiating AFs in which the nodes are restricted to literals and rules, encoding the underlying theory directly. Arguments, in each of the three senses, then emerge from this framework as distinctive structures of nodes and paths. Our framework retains the theoretical and computational benefits of an abstract AF, while keeping notions distinct which are conflated in other approaches to instantiation.

Inconsistency management policies allow a relational database user to express customized ways for managing inconsistency according to his need. For each functional dependency, a user has a library of applicable policies, each of them with constraints, requirements, and preferences for their application, that can contradict each other. The problem that we address in this work is that of determining a subset of these policies that are suitable for application w.r.t. the set of constraints and user preferences. We propose a classical logic argumentation-based solution, which is a natural approach given that integrity constraints in databases and data instances are, in general, expressed in first order logic (FOL). An automatic argumentation-based selection process allows to retain some of the characteristics of the kind of reasoning that a human would perform in this situation.

In the The use of argumentation for decision support is not new, remainder of the paper, we motivate our approach by using a with a long history of studies such as (Amgoud and Prade group decision making setting in clinical oncology, present a 2009; Amgoud and Vesic 2009; Amgoud, Dimopoulos, and formal framework, and procedural basis for mixed initiative Moraitis 2008; Fox et al. 2007; Amgoud and Prade 2006; argumentation and finally describe a clinical group decision Atkinson, Bench-Capon, and Modgil 2006; Rehg, McBurney, support system that implements this framework.

This paper describes a preliminary proposal of an argumentation-based approach to modeling articulated decision support contexts. The proposed approach encompasses a variety of argument and attack schemes aimed at representing basic knowledge and reasoning patterns for decision support. Some of the defined attack schemes involve attacks directed towards other attacks, which are not allowed in traditional argumentation frameworks but turn out to be useful as a knowledge and reasoning modeling tool: in particular, we demonstrate their use to support what-if reasoning capabilities, which are of primary importance in decision support. Formal backing to this approach is provided by the AFRA formalism, a recently proposed extension of Dung’s argumentation framework. A literature example concerning a decision problem about medical treatments is adopted to illustrate the approach.

We study the notion of informedness in a client-consultant setting. Using a software simulator, we examine the extent to which it pays off for consultants to provide their clients with advice that is well-informed, or with advice that is merely meant to appear to be well-informed. The latter strategy is beneficial in that it costs less resources to keep up-to-date, but carries the risk of a decreased reputation if the clients discover the low level of informedness of the consultant. Our experimental results indicate that under different circumstances, different strategies yield the optimal results (net profit) for the consultants.

Recently, Argumentation Mechanism Design (ArgMD) was introduced as a new paradigm for studying argumentation among self-interested agents using game-theoretic techniques. Preliminary results showed a condition under which a direct mechanism based on Dung's grounded semantics is strategy-proof (i.e. truth enforcing). But these early results dealt with a highly restricted form of agent preferences, and assumed agents can only hide, but not lie about, arguments. In this paper, we characterise strategy-proofness under grounded semantics for a more realistic preference class (namely, focal arguments). We also provide the first analysis of the case where agents can lie.

This article falls within the field of abstract argumentation frameworks. In particular, we focus on the study of frameworks using a proof procedure based on dialectical trees. These trees rely on a marking procedure to determine the warrant status of their root argument. Thus, our objective is to formulate rationality postulates to characterize the marking criterion over dialectical trees. The behavior of the marking procedure is closely tied to the alteration of trees, which is the keystone of any model of change based on dialectical argumentation. Hence, the results achieved in this work will benefit research on dynamics in argumentation.

Dung's abstract theory of argumentation has become established as a general framework for various species of non-monotonic reasoning, and reasoning in the presence of conflict. A Dung framework consists of arguments related by attacks, and the extensions of a framework, and so the status of arguments, are defined under different semantics. Developments of Dung's work have also defined argument labellings as an alternative way of characterising extensions, and dialectical argument game proof theories for establishing the status of individual arguments. Recently, Extended Argumentation Frameworks extend Dung's theory so that arguments not only attack arguments, but attacks themselves. In this way, the extended theory provides an abstract framework for principled integration of meta-level argumentation about defeasible preferences applied to resolve conflicts between object level arguments. In this paper we formalise labellings and argument games for a selection of Dung's semantics defined for the extended frameworks.

Recently, the notion of accrual of arguments has received some attention from the argumentation community. Three principles for argument accrual have been identified as necessary to hold in argumentation frameworks. In this paper we propose an approach to model the accrual of arguments in the context of Defeasible Logic Programming, a logic programming approach to argumentation which has proven to be successful for many real-world applications. We will analyze the above mentioned principles in the context of our proposal, studying other interesting properties.

We present an unified methodology for representation and development of dialectical proof procedures in both abstract and assumption-based argumentation based on the notions of legal environments and dispute derivation. A legal environment specifies the legal moves of the dispute parties while a dispute derivation describes the procedure structure. A key insight of this paper is that the opponent moves determine the soundness of a dispute while its completeness depends on the proponent moves.