On the Acceptability of Arguments in Preference-Based Argumentation
This work addresses reasoning with uncertain knowledge for AI and logic communities, but it appears incremental as it builds on previous principles.
The paper tackles the problem of evaluating argument acceptability in preference-based argumentation by investigating two complementary viewpoints—based on direct counterarguments and defenders—and enforces these using preference orderings, with results illustrated in the context of stratified knowledge bases.
Argumentation is a promising model for reasoning with uncertain knowledge. The key concept of acceptability enables to differentiate arguments and counterarguments: The certainty of a proposition can then be evaluated through the most acceptable arguments for that proposition. In this paper, we investigate different complementary points of view: - an acceptability based on the existence of direct counterarguments, - an acceptability based on the existence of defenders. Pursuing previous work on preference-based argumentation principles, we enforce both points of view by taking into account preference orderings for comparing arguments. Our approach is illustrated in the context of reasoning with stratified knowldge bases.