Argumentation theory is a powerful paradigm that formalizes a type of commonsense reasoning that aims to simulate the human ability to resolve a specific problem in an intelligent manner. A classical argumentation process takes into account only the properties related to the intrinsic logical soundness of an argument in order to determine its acceptability status. However, these properties are not always the only ones that matter to establish the argument's acceptabilitythere exist other qualities, such as strength, weight, social votes, trust degree, relevance level, and certainty degree, among others.In this work, we redefine the argumentative process to improve the analysis of arguments by considering their special features in order to obtain more refined results. Towards this end, we propose adding meta-level information to the arguments in the form of labels representing quantifiable data ranking over a range of fuzzy valuations. These labels are propagated through an argumentative graph according to the relations of support, conflict, and aggregation between arguments. Through this process we obtain final labels that are useful in determining argument acceptability. We redefine the argumentative process improving the argumentation analysis considering special features of the arguments.We add meta-level information to arguments as labels representing quantifiable data ranking over a fuzzy valuations range.Labels are propagated through an argumentative graph according to the relations of support, conflict, and aggregation.Label information is used to establish the arguments' acceptability according to different acceptance levels.We define an acceptability threshold to determine whether an argument satisfies certain conditions to be accepted.
Different formalisms for solving problems of inference under uncertainty have been developed so far. The most popular numerical approach is the theory of Bayesian inference [Lauritzen and Spiegelhalter, 1988]. More general approaches are the Dempster-Shafer theory of evidence [Shafer, 1976], and possibility theory [Dubois and Prade, 1990], which is closely related to fuzzy systems. For these systems computer implementations are available. In competition with these numerical methods are different symbolic approaches. Many of them are based on different types of non-monotonic logic. Argumentation can be modelled at an abstract level using a directed graph where each node denotes an argument and each arc denotes an attack by one argument on another. Since arguments are often uncertain, it can be useful to quantify the uncertainty associated with each argument. Recently, there have been proposals to extend abstract argumentation to take this uncertainty into account. This assigns a probability value for each argument that represents the degree to which the argument is believed to hold, and this is then used to generate a probability distribution over the full subgraphs of the argument graph, which in turn can be used to determine the probability that a set of arguments is admissible or an extension. In order to more fully understand uncertainty in argumentation, in this paper, we extend this idea by considering logic-based argumentation with uncertain arguments. This is based on a probability distribution over models of the language, which can then be used to give a probability distribution over arguments that are constructed using classical logic. We show how this formalization of uncertainty of logical arguments relates to uncertainty of abstract arguments, and we consider a number of interesting classes of probability assignments. Recently, there has been a proposal by Dung and Thang and by to extend abstract argumentation to take uncertainty of arguments into account by assigning a probability value to each argument, and then use this assignment to determine the probability that a set of arguments is an extension. In this paper, we explore some of the assumptions behind the definitions, and some of the resulting properties, of the proposal for probabilistic argument graphs. Attributing a cyber-operation through the use of multiple pieces of technical evidence (i.e., malware reverse-engineering and source tracking) and conventional intelligence sources (i.e., human or signals intelligence) is a difficult problem not only due to the effort required to obtain evidence, but the ease with which an adversary can plant false evidence. In this paper, we introduce a formal reasoning system called the InCA (Intelligent Cyber Attribution) framework that is designed to aid an analyst in the attribution of a cyber-operation even when the available information is conflicting and or uncertain. Our approach combines argumentation-based reasoning, logic programming, and probabilistic models to not only attribute an operation but also explain to the analyst why the system reaches its conclusions. We present the syntax and proof theory of a logic of ar gumentation, LA. We also outline the development of a category theoretic semantics for LA. LA is the core of a proof theoretic model for reasoning under uncertainty. In this logic, propositions are labelled with a representation of the arguments which support their validity. Arguments may then be aggregated to collect more information about the potential validity of the propositions of interest. W e make the notion of aggregation primitive to the logic, and then define strength mappings from sets of ar guments to one of a number of possible dictionaries. This provides a uniform framework which incorporates a number of numerical and symbolic techniques for assigning subjective confidences to propositions on the basis of their supporting ar guments. These aggregation techniques are also described, with examples. Probabilistic abstract argumentation combines Dung’s abstract argumentation framework with probability theory in order to model uncertainty in argumentation. In this setting, we address the fundamental problem of computing the probability that a set of arguments is an extension according to a given semantics. We focus on the most popular semantics (i.e., admissible, stable, complete, grounded, preferred, ideal-set, ideal, stage, and semistable) and show the following dichotomy result: computing the probability that a set of arguments is an extension is either FP or FP#P-complete depending on the semantics adopted. Our polynomial-time results are particularly interesting, as they hold for some semantics for which no polynomial-time technique was known so far. Many real-world knowledge-based systems must deal with information coming from different sources that invariably leads to incompleteness, overspecification, or inherently uncertain content. The presence of these varying levels of uncertainty doesn't mean that the information is worthless --- rather, these are hurdles that the knowledge engineer must learn to work with. In this paper, we continue work on an argumentation-based framework that extends the well-known Defeasible Logic Programming (DeLP) language with probabilistic uncertainty, giving rise to the Defeasible Logic Programming with Presumptions and Probabilistic Environments (DeLP3E) model. Our prior work focused on the problem of belief revision in DeLP3E, where we proposed a non-prioritized class of revision operators called AFO (Annotation Function-based Operators) to solve this problem. In this paper, we further study this class and argue that in some cases it may be desirable to define revision operators that take quantitative aspects into account, such as how the probabilities of certain literals or formulas of interest change after the revision takes place. To the best of our knowledge, this problem has not been addressed in the argumentation literature to date. We propose the QAFO (Quantitative Annotation Function-based Operators) class of operators, a subclass of AFO, and then go on to study the complexity of several problems related to their specification and application in revising knowledge bases. Finally, we present an algorithm for computing the probability that a literal is warranted in a DeLP3E knowledge base, and discuss how it could be applied towards implementing QAFO-style operators that compute approximations rather than exact operations. Classical semantics for abstract argumentation frameworks are usually defined in terms of extensions or, more recently, labelings. That is, an argument is either regarded as accepted with respect to a labeling or not. In order to reason with a specific semantics one takes either a credulous or skeptical approach, i. e. an argument is ultimately accepted, if it is accepted in one or all labelings, respectively. In this paper, we propose a more general approach for a semantics that allows for a more fine-grained differentiation between those two extreme views on reasoning. In particular, we propose a probabilistic semantics for abstract argumentation that assigns probabilities or degrees of belief to individual arguments. We show that our semantics generalizes the classical notions of semantics and we point out interesting relationships between concepts from argumentation and probabilistic reasoning. We illustrate the usefulness of our semantics on an example from the medical domain.