While neural networks have been successfully used in a number of machine learning applications, logical languages have been the standard for the representation of argumentative reasoning. In this paper, we establish a relationship between neural networks and argumentation networks, combining reasoning and learning in the same argumentation framework. We do so by presenting a new neural argument...

We introduce a modular framework for distributed abstract argumentation where the argumentation context, that is information about preferences among arguments, values, validity, reasoning mode (skeptical vs. credulous) and even the chosen semantics can be explicitly represented. The framework consists of a collection of abstract argument systems connected via mediators. Each mediator integrates...

In the current paper, we re-examine the connection between formal argumentation and logic programming from the perspective of semantics. We observe that one particular translation from logic programs to instantiated argumentation (the one described by Wu, Caminada and Gabbay) is able to serve as a basis for describing various equivalences between logic programming semantics and argumentation se...

Within the last years, and in particular due to the first edition of the International Competition on Computational Models of Argumentation (ICCMA) in 2015, the field of formal argumentation has seen an increasing number of systems for Dung’s abstract argumentation framework. However, the majority of the current approaches rely on reductions to other solving paradigms like SAT-solving and Answe...

Over the last decennia, many systems for formal argumentation have been defined. The problem, however, is that these systems do not always satisfy reasonable properties. In this paper, we focus on the particular property that a conflict between two arguments cannot keep other unrelated arguments from becoming justified. Although this property appears obvious, it is in fact violated by several e...

In this paper we describe AFBenchGen2, which allows to randomised argumentation frameworks for testing purposes with a large variety of structures.

A formal model is proposed of argumentation with burdens and standards of proof, overcoming shortcomings of earlier work. The model is based on a distinction between default and inverted burdens of proof. This distinction is formalised by adapting the definition of defeat of the ASPIC+ framework for structured argumentation. Since ASPIC+ generates abstract argumentation frameworks, the model is...

Solvers for Dung’s Argumentation

This paper addresses the problem of revising a Dung-style argumentation framework by adding finitely many new arguments which may interact with old ones. We study the behavior of the extensions of an argumentation framework if we extend it (new information) and/or change the underlying semantics (change of proof standards). We show both possibility and impossibility results related to the probl...