Graduality in Argumentation

Graduality in Argumentation

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 th...

Value Based Argumentation in Hierarchical Argumentation Frameworks

Hierarchical argumentation frameworks organise Dung argumentation frameworks into a hierarchy so that argumentation over preference information in a level n Dung framework is used to resolve conflicts between arguments in a level n1 framework. In this paper we formalise and extend value based argumentation [1] in a hierarchical argumentation framework and illustrate application of the resulting...

Argumentation update in YALLA (Yet Another Logic Language for Argumentation)

This article1 proposes a complete framework for handling the dynamics of an abstract argumentation system. This frame can encompass several belief bases under the form of several argumentation systems, more precisely it is possible to express and study how an agent who has her own argumentation system can interact on a target argumentation system (that may represent a state of knowledge at a gi...

Argumentation Argumentation Schema and the Myside Bias in Written

Empirical Argumentation: Integrating Induction and Argumentation in MAS

This paper presents an approach that integrates notions and techniques from two distinct fields of study —namely inductive learning and argumentation in multiagent systems (MAS). We will first discuss inductive learning and the role argumentation plays in multiagent inductive learning. Then we focus on how inductive learning can be used to realize argumentation in MAS based on empirical grounds...