{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020474137931034482, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 6.2015503875969, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Refined Preference-based Argumentation Frameworks

Argumentation is a reasoning model based on constructing arguments, determining potential conflicts between arguments and determining acceptable arguments. Dung's argumentation theory is an abstract framework based on a binary defeat relation between arguments. Due to this abstract representation, it has been instantiated in different ways. In particular, preference-based argumentation frameworks take into account a preference relation over arguments together with a (non necessarily symmetric) attack relation. We show that preference-based argumentation frameworks faithfully instantiate Dung's framework only when the attack relation is symmetric. Moreover the latter condition prevents undesirable results. We also promote a higher impact of preferences in preference-based argumentation frameworks and propose different ways to rank-order sets of acceptable arguments.