On the Acceptability of Arguments in Preference-Based Argumentation

Abstract

Argumentation is a promising model for reasoning with uncertain and inconsistent knowledge. The key concept of acceptability enables to differentiate arguments and defeaters: 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 defeaters and 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 knowledge bases.