6 accepted papers
Incomplete Abstract Argumentation Frameworks (iAAFs) extend Abstract Argumentation Frameworks (AAFs) by allowing arguments and attacks to be specified as uncertain, enabling a compact representation of alternative argumentation scenarios. Despite extensive work on reasoning with iAAFs, their express
We address the context of Single-Audience Value-Based Abstract Argumentation Framework (AVAF), where the arguments are labeled with the social values that they promote and the activation/deactivation of the attacks depends on the audience profile (expressed as a set of preferences between the social
We introduce PERCVER and PERCACC, the problems asking for the percentages of the completions of an incomplete Abstract Argumentation Framework (iAAF) where a set of arguments S is an extension and an argument a is accepted, respectively. These problems give insights into the status of S and a more…
In the context of probabilistic AAFs, we intro- duce AAFs with marginal probabilities (mAAFs) requiring only marginal probabilities of argu- ments/attacks to be specified and not relying on the independence assumption. Reasoning over mAAFs requires taking into account multiple probability dist…
We introduce "argument-incomplete Abstract Argumentation Frameworks with dependencies", that extend the traditional abstract argumentation reasoning to the case where some arguments are uncertain and correlated through logical dependencies (such as mutual exclusion, implication, etc.). We c…
We revisit the notion of i-extension, i.e., the adaption of the fundamental notion of extension to the case of incomplete Abstract Argumentation Frameworks. We show that the definition of i-extension raises some concerns in the "possible" variant, e.g., it allows even conflicting arguments…