Related papers: Cogent argument extensions are weakly admissible b…
In this work, we broaden the investigation of admissibility notions in the context of assumption-based argumentation (ABA). More specifically, we study two prominent alternatives to the standard notion of admissibility from abstract…
Abstract argumentation is a popular toolkit for modeling, evaluating, and comparing arguments. Relationships between arguments are specified in argumentation frameworks (AFs), and conditions are placed on sets (extensions) of arguments that…
In this paper we discuss contrastive explanations for formal argumentation - the question why a certain argument (the fact) can be accepted, whilst another argument (the foil) cannot be accepted under various extension-based semantics. The…
This paper deals with the problem of finding the preferred extensions of an argumentation framework by means of a bijection with the naive sets of another framework. First, we consider the case where an argumentation framework is…
We address the issue of defining a semantics for deontic argumentation that supports weak permission. Some recent results show that grounded semantics do not support weak permission when there is a conflict between two obligations. We…
We contemplate a higher-level bipolar abstract argumentation for non-elementary arguments such as: X argues against Ys sincerity with the fact that Y has presented his argument to draw a conclusion C, by omitting other facts which would not…
Much like admissibility is the key concept underlying preferred semantics, strong admissibility is the key concept underlying grounded semantics, as membership of a strongly admissible set is sufficient to show membership of the grounded…
Abstract argumentation offers an appealing way of representing and evaluating arguments and counterarguments. This approach can be enhanced by a probability assignment to each argument. There are various interpretations that can be ascribed…
In Dung-style abstract argumentation, various semantics capture notions of acceptability of arguments. The admissibility semantics capture the notion that an argument can be consistently defended from any potential counterargument. Weak…
Weighted gradual semantics provide an acceptability degree to each argument representing the strength of the argument, computed based on factors including background evidence for the argument, and taking into account interactions between…
Dung's abstract argumentation framework consists of a set of interacting arguments and a series of semantics for evaluating them. Those semantics partition the powerset of the set of arguments into two classes: extensions and…
We construct a denotational model of linear logic, whose objects are all the locally convex and separated topological vector spaces endowed with their weak topology. The negation is interpreted as the dual, linear proofs are interpreted as…
In this paper we introduce a novel family of semantics called weakly complete semantics. Differently from Dung's complete semantics, weakly complete semantics employs a mechanism called undecidedness blocking by which the label undecided of…
We consider the notion of weak permission as the failure to conclude that the opposite obligation. We investigate the issue from the point of non-monotonic reasoning, specifically logic programming and structured argumentation, and we show…
In this paper, we discuss necessary and sufficient explanations for formal argumentation - the question whether and why a certain argument can be accepted (or not) under various extension-based semantics. Given a framework with which…
Recently, Strength-based Argumentation Frameworks (StrAFs) have been proposed to model situations where some quantitative strength is associated with arguments. In this setting, the notion of accrual corresponds to sets of arguments that…
Explainable Artificial Intelligence and Formal Argumentation have received significant attention in recent years. Argumentation-based systems often lack explainability while supporting decision-making processes. Counterfactual and…
Argumentation frameworks, consisting of arguments and an attack relation representing conflicts, are fundamental for formally studying reasoning under conflicting information. We use methods from mathematical logic, specifically…
Weak coalgebra-Galois extensions are studied. A notion of an invertible weak entwining structure is introduced. It is proven that, within an invertible weak entwining structure, the surjectivity of the canonical map implies bijectivity…
Translations between different nonmonotonic formalisms always have been an important topic in the field, in particular to understand the knowledge-representation capabilities those formalisms offer. We provide such an investigation in terms…