A Principle-based Account of Self-attacking Arguments in Gradual Semantics

Abstract

The issue of how a semantics should deal with self-attacking arguments was always a subject of debate among argumentation scholars. A consensus exists for extension-based semantics because those arguments are always rejected (as soon as the semantics in question respects conflict-freeness). In case of gradual semantics, the question is more complex, since other criteria are taken into account. In this paper, we check the impact of those arguments by using a principle-based approach. Principles like self-contradiction and strong self-contradiction prescribe how to deal with self-attacking arguments. We show that they are incompatible with the well-known equivalence principle (which is satisfied by almost all the existing gradual semantics), as well as with some other principles (e.g. counting). This incompatibility was not studied until now and the class of semantics satisfying self-contradiction is under-explored. In the present paper, we explore that class of semantics. We show links and incompatibilities between several principles. We define a new general oriented argumentation semantics that satisfies (strong) self-contradiction and a maximal number of compatible principles. We introduce an iterative algorithm to calculate our semantics and prove that it always converges. We also provide a characterization of our semantics. Finally, we experimentally show that our semantics is computationally efficient.

Revisiting Approximate Reasoning Based on Grounded Semantics

“…Second, it would be interesting to extend our approaches for reasoning with other extension-based semantics (e.g. ideal, stage, semi-stable, etc), using other gradual semantics instead of h-categorizer (or an extension of it [4]), and the comparison with the approaches using machine learning. Third, we would like to determine the cases (e.g.…”