On the Acceptability of Arguments in Preference-Based Argumentation

TL;DR

This paper explores how different notions of acceptability in preference-based argumentation can be modeled using preference orderings, enhancing reasoning with uncertain knowledge and stratified knowledge bases.

Contribution

It introduces a unified approach to acceptability based on counterarguments and defenders, incorporating preference orderings to improve argument evaluation.

Findings

Enhanced argument acceptability models with preference orderings

Application to reasoning with stratified knowledge bases

Demonstrated effectiveness in uncertain reasoning contexts

Abstract

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.