You are viewing a javascript disabled version of the site. Please enable Javascript for this site to function properly.
Go to headerGo to navigationGo to searchGo to contentsGo to footer
In content section. Select this link to jump to navigation

Argument & Computation - Volume 13, issue 3

open access

Open Access
ISSN  1946-2166 (P)
ISSN 1946-2174 (E)

Impact Factor 2024: 1.7

Argument & Computation (A&C) is an open access journal providing a dedicated venue for the dissemination of high quality papers concerning state-of-the-art advancements in the field of computational argumentation.

A&C stands as an interdisciplinary journal by nature, lying at the crossing of the studies on artificial, natural and theoretical argumentation, acknowledging the richness of diversity and promoting integration.

The journal welcomes submissions presenting original scientific results and innovative applications, relevant to this multi-faceted domain and addressing foundational, design, or implementation aspects of computational models and systems thereof, extending the state-of-the-art in research.

Proposals for timely reviews and tutorials and for special issues are encouraged and should be discussed with the Editors-in-Chief.

Topics of interest are exemplified, but not exhausted, by the following list:

  • Formal, semi-formal and informal models for argumentation;
  • Dialogue based on argumentation;
  • Argumentation and computational linguistics;
  • Argument mining;
  • Argumentation and defeasible reasoning;
  • Argumentation and game theory;
  • Argumentation and probability;
  • Argumentation and logic programming;
  • Argumentation and narrative;
  • Analogical argumentation;
  • Reasoning about action and time with argumentation;
  • Decision making based on argumentation;
  • Strategies in argumentation;
  • Argumentation in agents and multi-agent systems;
  • Argumentation for coordination and coalition formation;
  • Argument-based negotiation, dispute resolution and mediation;
  • Argumentation, trust and reputation;
  • Argumentation and human-computer interaction;
  • Argumentation and machine learning;
  • Computational properties of argumentation systems;
  • Implementation of argumentation systems;
  • Tools for supporting and teaching argumentation;
  • Innovative applications based on argumentation;
  • Computational argumentation in specific argument-intensive domains, such as science, business, law, medicine, government, forensics.

All submitted manuscripts are subject to initial appraisal by the Editors-in-Chief, and, if found suitable for further consideration, to rigorous peer-review by independent, anonymous expert referees. Papers should explain the addressed problem, the relevant state-of-the-art, the innovative idea, the results reported, and the relevance.

Queries regarding submissions can be made by contacting the Editors-in-Chief, whose decision is final.

Strong admissibility for abstract dialectical frameworks

Authors: Keshavarzi Zafarghandi, Atefeh | Verbrugge, Rineke | Verheij, Bart

Article Type: Research Article

Abstract: Abstract dialectical frameworks (ADFs) have been introduced as a formalism for modeling argumentation allowing general logical satisfaction conditions and the relevant argument evaluation. Different criteria used to settle the acceptance of arguments are called semantics. Semantics of ADFs have so far mainly been defined based on the concept of admissibility. However, the notion of strongly admissible semantics studied for abstract argumentation frameworks has not yet been introduced for ADFs. In the current work we present the concept of strong admissibility of interpretations for ADFs. Further, we show that strongly admissible interpretations of ADFs form a lattice with the grounded interpretation … Show more

Keywords: Abstract argumentation frameworks, abstract dialectical frameworks, strongly admissible semantics

DOI: 10.3233/AAC-210002

Citation: Argument & Computation, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 249-289, 2022

Get PDF open access

Yes, no, maybe, I don’t know: Complexity and application of abstract argumentation with incomplete knowledge

Authors: Mailly, Jean-Guy

Article Type: Research Article

Abstract: Abstract argumentation, as originally defined by Dung, is a model that allows the description of certain information about arguments and relationships between them: in an abstract argumentation framework (AF), the agent knows for sure whether a given argument or attack exists. It means that the absence of an attack between two arguments can be interpreted as “we know that the first argument does not attack the second one”. But the question of uncertainty in abstract argumentation has received much attention in the last years. In this paper, we survey approaches that allow to express information like “There may (or may … Show more

Keywords: Abstract argumentation, uncertainty, ignorance, complexity

DOI: 10.3233/AAC-210010

Citation: Argument & Computation, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 291-324, 2022

Get PDF open access

Revisiting initial sets in abstract argumentation

Authors: Thimm, Matthias

Article Type: Research Article

Abstract: We revisit the notion of initial sets by Xu and Cayrol (In Proceedings of the 1st Chinese Conference on Logic and Argumentation (CLAR’16) 2016 ), i. e., non-empty minimal admissible sets in abstract argumentation frameworks. Initial sets are a simple concept for analysing conflicts in an abstract argumentation framework and to explain why certain arguments can be accepted. We contribute with new insights on the structure of initial sets and devise a simple non-deterministic construction principle for any admissible set, based on iterative selection of initial sets of the original framework and its induced reducts. In particular, we … Show more

Keywords: Abstract argumentation, initial sets

DOI: 10.3233/AAC-210018

Citation: Argument & Computation, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 325-360, 2022

Get PDF open access

A tool for merging extensions of abstract argumentation frameworks

Authors: Delobelle, Jérôme | Mailly, Jean-Guy

Article Type: Research Article

Abstract: We describe a tool that allows the merging of extensions of argumentation frameworks, following the approach defined by (In Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR’16) (2016 ) 33–42). The tool is implemented in Java, and is highly modular thanks to Object Oriented Programming (OOP) principles. We describe a short experimental study that assesses the scalability of the approach, as well as the impact on runtime of using an integrity constraint.

Keywords: Abstract argumentation, belief merging

DOI: 10.3233/AAC-210014

Citation: Argument & Computation, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 361-368, 2022

Get PDF open access
Show more