A Parametrized Ranking-Based Semantics for Persuasion

  • Elise Bonzon
  • Jérôme Delobelle
  • Sébastien Konieczny
  • Nicolas Maudet
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10564)


In this paper we question the ability of the existant ranking semantics for argumentation to capture persuasion settings, emphasizing in particular the phenomena of protocatalepsis (the fact that it is often efficient to anticipate the counter-arguments of the audience), and of fading (the fact that long lines of argumentation become ineffective). It turns out that some widely accepted principles of ranking-based semantics are incompatible with a faithful treatment of these phenomena. We thus propose a parametrized semantics based on propagation of values, which allows to control the scope of arguments to be considered for evaluation. We investigate its properties (identifying in particular threshold values guaranteeing that some properties hold), and report experimental results showing that the family of rankings that may be returned have a high coherence rate.


Argumentation Persuasion Ranking semantics 



This work benefited from the support of the project AMANDE ANR-13-BS02-0004 of the French National Research Agency (ANR).


  1. 1.
    Amgoud, L., Ben-Naim, J.: Ranking-based semantics for argumentation frameworks. In: Liu, W., Subrahmanian, V.S., Wijsen, J. (eds.) SUM 2013. LNCS, vol. 8078, pp. 134–147. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-40381-1_11 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Amgoud, L., Ben-Naim, J., Doder, D., Vesic, S.: Ranking arguments with compensation-based semantics. In: Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2016), pp. 12–21 (2016)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Besnard, P., Hunter, A.: A logic-based theory of deductive arguments. Artif. Intell. 128(1–2), 203–235 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Besnard, P., Hunter, A.: Elements of Argumentation. MIT Press (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bonzon, E., Delobelle, J., Konieczny, S., Maudet, N.: A comparative study of ranking-based semantics for abstract argumentation. In: Proceedings of the 30th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2016), pp. 914–920 (2016)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bonzon, E., Delobelle, J., Konieczny, S., Maudet, N.: Argumentation ranking semantics based on propagation. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2016), pp. 139–150 (2016)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.-C.: Graduality in argumentation. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 23, 245–297 (2005)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Correia, M., Cruz, J., Leite, J.: On the efficient implementation of social abstract argumentation. In: Proceedings of the 21st European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (eCAI 2014), pp. 225–230 (2014)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    da Costa Pereira, C., Tettamanzi, A., Villata, S.: Changing one’s mind: erase or rewind? In: Proceedings of the 22nd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, (IJCAI 2011), pp. 164–171 (2011)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dung, P.H.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif. Intell. 77(2), 321–358 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Eğilmez, S., Martins, J., Leite, J.: Extending social abstract argumentation with votes on attacks. In: Black, E., Modgil, S., Oren, N. (eds.) TAFA 2013. LNCS, vol. 8306, pp. 16–31. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-54373-9_2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gabbay, D.M.: Equational approach to argumentation networks. Argument Comput. 3(2–3), 87–142 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Grossi, D., Modgil, S.: On the graded acceptability of arguments. In: Proceedings of the 24th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2015), pp. 868–874 (2015)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hunter, A.: Opportunities for argument-centric persuasion in behaviour change. In: Fermé, E., Leite, J. (eds.) JELIA 2014. LNCS, vol. 8761, pp. 48–61. Springer, Cham (2014). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-11558-0_4 Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kendall, M.G.: A new measure of rank correlation. Biometrika 30(1/2), 81–93 (1938)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Leite, J., Martins, J.: Social abstract argumentation. In: Proceedings of the 22nd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, (IJCAI 2011), pp. 2287–2292 (2011)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Matt, P.-A., Toni, F.: A game-theoretic measure of argument strength for abstract argumentation. In: Hölldobler, S., Lutz, C., Wansing, H. (eds.) JELIA 2008. LNCS, vol. 5293, pp. 285–297. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-87803-2_24 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pu, F., Luo, J., Luo, G.: Some supplementaries to the counting semantics for abstract argumentation. In: Proceedings of the 27th IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence (ICTAI 2015), pp. 242–249 (2015)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pu, F., Luo, J., Zhang, Y., Luo, G.: Argument ranking with categoriser function. In: Buchmann, R., Kifor, C.V., Yu, J. (eds.) KSEM 2014. LNCS, vol. 8793, pp. 290–301. Springer, Cham (2014). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-12096-6_26 Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pu, F., Luo, J., Zhang, Y., Luo, G.: Attacker and defender counting approach for abstract argumentation. In: Proceedings of the 37th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci 2015) (2015)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tan, C., Niculae, V., Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, C., Lee, L.: Winning arguments: interaction dynamics and persuasion strategies in good-faith online discussions. In: Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on World Wide Web (WWW 2016), pp. 613–624 (2016)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Walton, D.: Dialog Theory for Critical Argumentation. John Benjamins Publishing (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elise Bonzon
    • 1
  • Jérôme Delobelle
    • 2
  • Sébastien Konieczny
    • 2
  • Nicolas Maudet
    • 3
  1. 1.LIPADEUniversité Paris DescartesParisFrance
  2. 2.CRILCNRS - Université d’ArtoisLensFrance
  3. 3.Sorbonne Universités, UPMC Univ Paris 06, CNRS - LIP6, UMR 7606ParisFrance

Personalised recommendations