Rejecting Arguments Based on Doubt in Structured Bipolar Argumentation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2602.03286v1
• Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2026 09:09:19 GMT
• Title: Rejecting Arguments Based on Doubt in Structured Bipolar Argumentation
• Authors: Michael A. Müller, Srdjan Vesic, Bruno Yun,
• Abstract summary: This paper develops a new approach to computational argumentation informed by philosophical and linguistic views.<n>It takes into account two ideas that have received little attention in the literature on computational argumentation.
• Score: 2.6754173570117303
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: This paper develops a new approach to computational argumentation that is informed by philosophical and linguistic views. Namely, it takes into account two ideas that have received little attention in the literature on computational argumentation: First, an agent may rationally reject an argument based on mere doubt, thus not all arguments they could defend must be accepted; and, second, that it is sometimes more natural to think in terms of which individual sentences or claims an agent accepts in a debate, rather than which arguments. In order to incorporate these two ideas into a computational approach, we first define the notion of structured bipolar argumentation frameworks (SBAFs), where arguments consist of sentences and we have both an attack and a support relation between them. Then, we provide semantics for SBAFs with two features: (1) Unlike with completeness-based semantics, our semantics do not force agents to accept all defended arguments. (2) In addition to argument extensions, which give acceptable sets of arguments, we also provide semantics for language extensions that specify acceptable sets of sentences. These semantics represent reasonable positions an agent might have in a debate. Our semantics lie between the admissible and complete semantics of abstract argumentation. Further, our approach can be used to provide a new perspective on existing approaches. For instance, we can specify the conditions under which an agent can ignore support between arguments (i.e. under which the use of abstract argumentation is warranted) and we show that deductive support semantics is a special case of our approach.

Related papers

• SAD: A Large-Scale Strategic Argumentative Dialogue Dataset [60.33125467375306]
  In practice, argumentation is often realized as multi-turn dialogue.<n>We present the first large-scale textbfStrategic textbfArgumentative textbfDialogue dataset, consisting of 392,822 examples.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-12T11:11:37Z)
• Reasoning is about giving reasons [55.56111618153049]
  We show that we can identify and extract the logical structure of natural language arguments in three popular reasoning datasets with high accuracies.<n>Our approach supports all forms of reasoning that depend on the logical structure of the natural language argument.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-20T07:26:53Z)
• Is the Top Still Spinning? Evaluating Subjectivity in Narrative Understanding [40.78154629252038]
  Forcing binary labels upon ambiguous claims lowers the reliability of evaluation.<n>We introduce LLM-generated edits of summaries as a method of providing a nuanced evaluation of claims.<n>We show that ARM produces a absolute 21% improvement in annotator agreement on claim faithfulness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-01T19:08:24Z)
• A Unifying Framework for Learning Argumentation Semantics [47.84663434179473]
  We present a novel framework, which uses an Inductive Logic Programming approach to learn the acceptability semantics for several abstract and structured argumentation frameworks in an interpretable way.<n>Our framework outperforms existing argumentation solvers, thus opening up new future research directions in the area of formal argumentation and human-machine dialogues.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-18T20:18:05Z)
• Ranking-based Argumentation Semantics Applied to Logical Argumentation (full version) [2.9005223064604078]
  We investigate the behaviour of ranking-based semantics for structured argumentation. We show that a wide class of ranking-based semantics gives rise to so-called culpability measures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-31T15:44:33Z)
• A Semantic Approach to Decidability in Epistemic Planning (Extended Version) [72.77805489645604]
  We use a novel semantic approach to achieve decidability. Specifically, we augment the logic of knowledge S5$_n$ and with an interaction axiom called (knowledge) commutativity. We prove that our framework admits a finitary non-fixpoint characterization of common knowledge, which is of independent interest.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-28T11:26:26Z)
• Many-valued Argumentation, Conditionals and a Probabilistic Semantics for Gradual Argumentation [3.9571744700171743]
  We propose a general approach to define a many-valued preferential interpretation of gradual argumentation semantics. As a proof of concept, in the finitely-valued case, an Answer set Programming approach is proposed for conditional reasoning. The paper also develops and discusses a probabilistic semantics for gradual argumentation, which builds on the many-valued conditional semantics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-14T22:10:46Z)
• Admissibility in Strength-based Argumentation: Complexity and Algorithms (Extended Version with Proofs) [1.5828697880068698]
  We study the adaptation of admissibility-based semantics to Strength-based Argumentation Frameworks (StrAFs) Especially, we show that the strong admissibility defined in the literature does not satisfy a desirable property, namely Dung's fundamental lemma. We propose a translation in pseudo-Boolean constraints for computing (strong and weak) extensions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-05T18:42:04Z)
• On the preferred extensions of argumentation frameworks: bijections with naive sets [0.2580765958706853]
  We consider the case where an argumentation framework is naive-bijective. We show that it is tractable for frameworks with bounded in-degree.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-11T08:42:55Z)
• A Formalisation of Abstract Argumentation in Higher-Order Logic [77.34726150561087]
  We present an approach for representing abstract argumentation frameworks based on an encoding into classical higher-order logic. This provides a uniform framework for computer-assisted assessment of abstract argumentation frameworks using interactive and automated reasoning tools.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-18T10:45:59Z)
• Exploring Discourse Structures for Argument Impact Classification [48.909640432326654]
  This paper empirically shows that the discourse relations between two arguments along the context path are essential factors for identifying the persuasive power of an argument. We propose DisCOC to inject and fuse the sentence-level structural information with contextualized features derived from large-scale language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-02T06:49:19Z)
• Technical Report of "Deductive Joint Support for Rational Unrestricted Rebuttal" [1.3706331473063877]
  In ASPIC-style structured argumentation an argument can rebut another argument by attacking its conclusion. In restricted rebuttal, the attacked conclusion must have been arrived at with a defeasible rule. In unrestricted rebuttal, it may have been arrived at with a strict rule, as long as at least one of the antecedents of this strict rule was already defeasible.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-05-07T17:19:18Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.