# On the Acceptability of Arguments in Preference-Based Argumentation

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/1301.7358 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/1301.7358/

## Key facts

- Cited by 6 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- First posted on arXiv 30 Jan 2013.

## Built on by (most cited first, 6 of 6)

- [Preference-Based Abstract Argumentation for Case-Based Reasoning (with Appendix)](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.00108/) (2024)
- [The Effect of Preferences in Abstract Argumentation Under a Claim-Centric View](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2204.13305/) (2022)
- [Argumentative Reward Learning: Reasoning About Human Preferences](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2209.14010/) (2022)
- [From User Preferences to Base Score Extraction Functions in Gradual Argumentation (with Appendix)](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.14674/) (2026)
- [Rejecting Arguments Based on Doubt in Structured Bipolar Argumentation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.03286/) (2026)
- [On the Existence of an Inverse Solution for Preference-Based Reductions in Argumentation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.22958/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Argumentation is a promising model for reasoning with uncertain knowledge. The key concept of acceptability enables to differentiate arguments and counterarguments: 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 counterarguments, - 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 knowldge bases.