Argument Theory Change applies classic belief change concepts to the area of argumentation. This intersection of fields takes advantage of the definition of a Dynamic Abstract Argumentation Framework, in which an argument is either active or inactive, and only in the former case it is taken into consideration in the reasoning process. An approach for an argument revision operator defined throug...

argumentation framework into which natural language arguments are translated.

Argumentation is a dynamic process. The enforcing problem in argumentation, i.e. the question whether it is possible to modify a given argumentation framework (AF) in such a way that a desired set of arguments becomes an extension or a subset of an extension, was first studied in [3] and positively answered under certain conditions. In this paper, we take up this research and study the more gen...

In the theory of abstract argumentation, the acceptance status of arguments is normally determined for the complete set of arguments at once, under a single semantics. However, this is not always desired. In this paper, we extend the notion of an argumentation framework to a multi-sorted argumentation framework, and we motivate this extension using an example which considers practical and epist...

Epistemic probabilities in argumentation frameworks are meant to represent subjective degrees of belief in the acceptance of arguments. As such, they are subject to some rationality conditions, taking into account the attack relation between arguments. This paper provides an advancement with respect to the previous literature on this matter by casting epistemic probabilities in the context of d...

The purpose of this work is to study a generalisation of Dung’s abstract argumentation frameworks that allows representing recursive attacks, that is, a class of attacks whose targets are other attacks. We do this by developing a theory of argumentation where the classic role of attacks in defeating arguments is replaced by a subset of them, which is extension dependent and which, intuitively, ...

The resolution-based grounded semantics constitutes one of the most interesting approaches for the evaluation of abstract argumentation frameworks. This particular semantics satisfies a large number of desired properties, among them all properties proposed by Baroni and Giacomin. In recent years, the analysis of argumentation semantics has been extended by further topics, among them characteriz...

In decision making, negotiation, and other kinds of practical reasoning, it is necessary to model preferences over possible outcomes. Such preferences usually depend on multiple criteria. We argue that the criteria by which outcomes are evaluated should be the satisfaction of a person’s underlying interests: the more an outcome satisfies his interests, the more preferred it is. Underlying inter...

In the field of ontology mapping, using argumentation to combine different mapping approaches is an innovative research area. We had extended the Value-based Argumentation Framework (VAF) in order to represent arguments with confidence degrees, according to the similarity degree between the terms being mapped. The mappings are computed by agents using different mapping approaches. Based on thei...

In a complex, dynamic multi-agent setting, coherent team actions are often jeopardized by conflicts in agents’ beliefs, plans and actions. Despite the considerable progress in teamwork research, the challenge of intra-team conflict resolution has remained largely unaddressed. This paper presents a system called CONSA, to resolve conflicts using argumentation-based negotiations. The key insight ...