Arguably the significance of an abstract model of argumentation depends on the range of realistic instantiations it allows. This paper therefore investigates for three frameworks for abstract argumentation with support relations whether they can be instantiated with the ASPIC framework for structured argumentation. Both evidential argumentation systems and a simple extension of Dung’s abstract ...

Argumentation is a relatively new research area in Artificial Intelligence. Since the early 1980s, its use has been investigated in various frameworks. We propose a general model for recommendation-based argumentation by extending Dung’s seminal argumentation system. This approach is applied to analyse argumentation on food quality in a public health policy. Cereal products, and more specifical...

We propose fuzzy argumentation frameworks as a conservative extension of traditional argumentation frameworks[6]. The fuzzy approach enriches the expressive power of the classical argumentation model by allowing to represent the relative strength of the attack relationships between arguments, as well as the degree to which arguments are accepted. Furthermore, we explore the relationship with fu...

We study the applicability of abstract argumentation (AF) reasoners in efficiently answering acceptability queries over assumption-based argumentation (ABA) frameworks, one of the prevalent forms of structured argumentation. We provide a refined algorithm for translating ABA frameworks to AFs allowing the use of AF reasoning to answer ABA acceptability queries, covering credulous and skeptical ...

Currently there is a revival of the study of dialectical argumentation in the artificial intelligence community. There are good reasons why: First, the notions of argument and counterargument shed new light on nonmonotonic reasoning. Second, the process character of dialectical argumentation inspires new computational techniques. In a recent important paper, Dung [1] has studied the relations o...

Argumentation is a reasoning model based on arguments and on attacks between arguments. It consists in evaluating the acceptability of arguments, according to a given semantics. Due to its generality, Dung’s framework for abstract argumentation systems, proposed in 1995, is a reference in the domain. Argumentation systems are commonly represented by graph structures, where nodes represent argum...

Research on computational argumentation faces the problem of how to automatically assess the quality of an argument or argumentation. While different quality dimensions have been approached in natural language processing, a common understanding of argumentation quality is still missing. This paper presents the first holistic work on computational argumentation quality in natural language. We co...

Reasoning about actions is a subfield of artificial intelligence that is concerned with representing and reasoning about dynamic domains. We propose to employ abstract argumentation for this purpose. Specifically, we present a translation of action domains from a specification language into Dung-style argumentation frameworks (AFs). As the key advantage of our approach, we use existing semantic...

Argumentation has been acknowledged as a powerful mechanism for automated decision making. In this context several recent works have studied the problem of accommodating preference information in argumentation. The majority of these studies rely on Dung’s abstract argumentation framework and its underlying acceptability semantics. In this paper we show that Dung’s acceptability semantics, when ...