An abstract argumentation framework is a commonly used formalism to provide a static representation of a dialogue. However, the order of enunciation of the arguments in an argumentative dialogue is very important and can affect the outcome of this dialogue. In this paper, we propose a new framework for modelling abstract argumentation graphs, a model that incorporates the order of enunciation of arguments. By taking this order into account, we have the means to deduce a unique outcome for each dialogue, called an extension. We also establish several properties, such as termination and correctness, and discuss two notions of completeness. In particular, we propose a modification of the previous transformation based on a "last enunciated last updated" strategy, which verifies the second form of completeness.

In this paper we propose a many-valued temporal conditional logic. We start from a many-valued logic with typicality, and extend it with the temporal operators of the Linear Time Temporal Logic (LTL), thus providing a formalism which is able to capture the dynamics of a system, trough strict and defeasible temporal properties. We also consider an instantiation of the formalism for gradual argumentation.

The recent evolution in Natural Language Processing (NLP) methods, in particular in the field of argumentation mining, has the potential to transform the way we interact with text, supporting the interpretation and analysis of complex discourse and debates. Can a graphic visualisation of complex argumentation enable a more critical interpretation of the arguments? This study focuses on analysing the impact of argumentation graphs (AGs) compared with regular texts for supporting argument interpretation. We found that AGs outperformed the extrinsic metrics throughout most UEQ scales as well as the NASA-TLX workload in all the terms but not in temporal or physical demand. The AG model was liked by a more significant number of participants, despite the fact that both the text-based and AG models yielded comparable outcomes in the critical interpretation in terms of working memory and altering participants decisions. The interpretation process involves reference to argumentation schemes (linked to critical questions (CQs)) in AGs. Interestingly, we found that the participants chose more CQs (using argument schemes in AGs) when they were less familiar with the argument topics, making AG schemes on some scales (relatively) supportive of the interpretation process. Therefore, AGs were considered to deliver a more critical approach to argument interpretation, especially with unfamiliar topics. Based on the 25 participants conducted in this study, it appears that AG has demonstrated an overall positive effect on the argument interpretation process.

In this paper we propose a general approach to define a many-valued preferential interpretation of gradual argumentation semantics. The approach allows for conditional reasoning over arguments and boolean combination of arguments, with respect to a class of gradual semantics, through the verification of graded (strict or defeasible) implications over a preferential interpretation. As a proof of concept, in the finitely-valued case, an Answer set Programming approach is proposed for conditional reasoning in a many-valued argumentation semantics of weighted argumentation graphs. The paper also develops and discusses a probabilistic semantics for gradual argumentation, which builds on the many-valued conditional semantics.

Dialogue systems are widely used in AI to support timely and interactive communication with users. We propose a general-purpose dialogue system architecture that leverages computational argumentation to perform reasoning and provide consistent and explainable answers. We illustrate the system using a COVID-19 vaccine information case study.

This paper applies t-SNE, a visualisation technique familiar from Deep Neural Network research to argumentation graphs by applying it to the output of graph embeddings generated using several different methods. It shows that such a visualisation approach can work for argumentation and show interesting structural properties of argumentation graphs, opening up paths for further research in the area.

An essential part of argumentation-based reasoning is to identify arguments in favor and against a statement or query, select the acceptable ones, and then determine whether or not the original statement should be accepted. We present here an abstract framework that considers two independent forms of argument interaction--support and conflict--and is able to represent distinctive information associated with these arguments. This information can enable additional actions such as: (i) a more in-depth analysis of the relations between the arguments; (ii) a representation of the user's posture to help in focusing the argumentative process, optimizing the values of attributes associated with certain arguments; and (iii) an enhancement of the semantics taking advantage of the availability of richer information about argument acceptability. Thus, the classical semantic definitions are enhanced by analyzing a set of postulates they satisfy. Finally, a polynomial-time algorithm to perform the labeling process is introduced, in which the argument interactions are considered.

In this paper, we propose a fresh perspective on argumentation semantics, to view them as a relational database. It offers encapsulation of the underlying argumentation graph, and allows us to understand argumentation semantics under a single, relational perspective, leading to the concept of relational argumentation semantics. This is a direction to understand argumentation semantics through a common formal language. We show that many existing semantics such as explanation semantics, multi-agent semantics, and more typical semantics, that have been proposed for specific purposes, are understood in the relational perspective.

Formal argumentation theory [4] is nonmonotonic in the sense that when new arguments are added, some arguments may change their status. In this rapport, we show that preferred, stable, complete and grounded semantics satisfy attack removal monotonicity. This means that if an attack from b to a is removed, the status of a cannot worsen, e.g. if a was skeptically accepted, it cannot become rejected. Note that result we prove in the present document is the proof of Proposition 1 and Conjecture 1 of the recent paper by Amgoud et al. [2].

In this work, we enrich a formalism for argumentation by including a formal characterization of features related to the knowledge, in order to capture proper reasoning in legal domains. We add meta-data information to the arguments in the form of labels representing quantitative and qualitative data about them. These labels are propagated through an argumentative graph according to the relations of support, conflict, and aggregation between arguments.