Evaluation of Arguments in Weighted Bipolar Graphs

  • Leila AmgoudEmail author
  • Jonathan Ben-Naim
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10369)


The paper tackled the issue of arguments evaluation in weighted bipolar argumentation graphs (i.e., graphs whose arguments have basic strengths, and may be both supported and attacked). We introduce axioms that an evaluation method (or semantics) could satisfy. Such axioms are very useful for judging and comparing semantics. We then analyze existing semantics on the basis of our axioms, and finally propose a new semantics for the class of acyclic graphs.


Support Relation Irrational Behavior Basic Strength Independence Axiom Attack Relation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



This work was supported by ANR-13-BS02-0004 and ANR-11-LABX-0040-CIMI.


  1. 1.
    Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.C.: On the acceptability of arguments in bipolar argumentation frameworks. In: Godo, L. (ed.) ECSQARU 2005. LNCS, vol. 3571, pp. 378–389. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). doi: 10.1007/11518655_33 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Oren, N., Norman, T.: Semantics for evidence-based argumentation. In: Proceedings of COMMA, pp. 276–284 (2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brewka, G., Woltran, S.: Abstract dialectical frameworks. In: Proceedings of KR (2010)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boella, G., Gabbay, D.M., van der Torre, L., Villata, S.: Support in abstract argumentation. In: Proceedings of COMMA, pp. 111–122 (2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nouioua, F., Risch, V.: Bipolar argumentation frameworks with specialized supports. In: International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence, ICTAI 2010, pp. 215–218 (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.C.: Gradual valuation for bipolar argumentation frameworks. In: Godo, L. (ed.) ECSQARU 2005. LNCS, vol. 3571, pp. 366–377. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). doi: 10.1007/11518655_32 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Baroni, P., Romano, M., Toni, F., Aurisicchio, M., Bertanza, G.: Automatic evaluation of design alternatives with quantitative argumentation. Argum. Comput. 6(1), 24–49 (2015)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rago, A., Toni, F., Aurisicchio, M., Baroni, P.: Discontinuity-free decision support with quantitative argumentation debates. In: Proceedings of KR, pp. 63–73 (2016)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in non-monotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif. Intell. 77, 321–357 (1995)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Amgoud, L., Ben-Naim, J.: Evaluation of arguments from support relations: axioms and semantics. In: Proceedings of IJCAI, pp. 900–906 (2016)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Amgoud, L., Ben-Naim, J.: Axiomatic foundations of acceptability semantics. In: Proceedings of KR, pp. 2–11 (2016)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.IRIT – CNRSToulouseFrance

Personalised recommendations