After the seminal work of [1], the argumentation community's focus has shifted to the relation between arguments, abstracting the content of the arguments. Thus, debates or discussions are represented as directed graphs, with arguments as nodes and attacks between arguments as directed edges. Several extension-based semantics have been defined to obtain conclusions from argumentation graphs. Such semantics identify subsets of arguments (called extensions), representing consistent conclusions [2, 3, 4]. Motivated by the work of [5], researchers started to focus on semantics which could give a more gradual view on arguments' acceptability by ranking them from the "less attacked" to the most (not necessarily based on the cardinality or quality of the attackers) [6].

A gradual semantics takes a weighted argumentation framework as input and outputs a final acceptability degree for each argument, with different semantics performing the computation in different manners. In this work, we consider the problem of attack inference. That is, given a gradual semantics, a set of arguments with associated initial weights, and the final desirable acceptability degrees associated with each argument, we seek to determine whether there is a set of attacks on those arguments such that we can obtain these acceptability degrees. The main contribution of our work is to demonstrate that the associated decision problem, i.e., whether a set of attacks can exist which allows the final acceptability degrees to occur for given initial weights, is NP-complete for the weighted h-categoriser and cardinality-based semantics, and is polynomial for the weighted max-based semantics, even for the complete version of the problem (where all initial weights and final acceptability degrees are known). We then briefly discuss how this decision problem can be modified to find the attacks themselves and conclude by examining the partial problem where not all initial weights or final acceptability degrees may be known.

Gradual semantics with abstract argumentation provide each argument with a score reflecting its acceptability, i.e. how "much" it is attacked by other arguments. Many different gradual semantics have been proposed in the literature, each following different principles and producing different argument rankings. A sub-class of such semantics, the so-called weighted semantics, takes, in addition to the graph structure, an initial set of weights over the arguments as input, with these weights affecting the resultant argument ranking. In this work, we consider the inverse problem over such weighted semantics. That is, given an argumentation framework and a desired argument ranking, we ask whether there exist initial weights such that a particular semantics produces the given ranking. The contribution of this paper are: (1) an algorithm to answer this problem, (2) a characterisation of the properties that a gradual semantics must satisfy for the algorithm to operate, and (3) an empirical evaluation of the proposed algorithm.

The assignment of weights to attacks in a classical Argumentation Framework allows to compute semantics by taking into account the different importance of each argument. We represent a Weighted Argumentation Framework by a non-binary matrix, and we characterize the basic extensions (such as w-admissible, w-stable, w-complete) by analysing sub-blocks of this matrix. Also, we show how to reduce the matrix into another one of smaller size, that is equivalent to the original one for the determination of extensions. Furthermore, we provide two algorithms that allow to build incrementally w-grounded and w-preferred extensions starting from a w-admissible extension.

The assignment of weights to attacks in a classical Argumentation Framework allows to compute semantics by taking into account the different importance of each argument. We represent a Weighted Argumentation Framework by a non-binary matrix, and we characterize the basic extensions (such as w-admissible, w- stable, w-complete) by analysing sub-blocks of this matrix. Also, we show how to reduce the matrix into another one of smaller size, that is equivalent to the original one for the determination of extensions. Furthermore, we provide two algorithms that allow to build incrementally w-grounded and w-preferred extensions starting from a w-admissible extension.

Recently, (Dunne et al. 2009; 2011) have suggested to weight attacks within Dung’s abstract argumentation frameworks, and introduced the concept of WAF (Weighted Argumentation Framework). However, they use WAFs in a very specific way for relaxing attacks. The aim of this paper is to explore ways to take advantage of attacks weights within an argumentation process. Two different approaches are considered: The first one extends the proposal by (Dunne et al. 2011) and accounts for other aggregation functions than sum in the objective of relaxing attacks. The second one shows how weights can be exploited to strengthen the usual notion of defence, leading to new concepts of extensions.