Recently, (Dunne et al. 2009; 2011) have suggested to weight attacks within Dung's abstract argumentation frameworks, and introduced the concept of WAF (Weighted Argumentation Framework). However, they use WAFs in a very specific way for relaxing attacks. The aim of this paper is to explore ways to take advantage of attacks weights within an argumentation process. Two different approaches are considered: The first one extends the proposal by (Dunne et al. 2011) and accounts for other aggregation functions than sum in the objective of relaxing attacks. The second one shows how weights can be exploited to strengthen the usual notion of defence, leading to new concepts of extensions.

Argumentation is a human-like reasoning mechanism contributing to the formalization of commonsense reasoning. In the last decade, several argument-based formalisms have emerged, with application in many areas, such as legal reasoning, autonomous agents and multi-agent systems; many are based on Dung's seminal work characterizing Abstract Argumentation Frameworks (AF). Recent research in the area has led to Temporal Argumentation Frameworks (TAF) that extend Dung's by considering the temporal availability of arguments. In this work we introduce a novel framework, called Extended Temporal Argumentation Framework (E-TAF), extending TAF with the capability of modeling availability of attacks among arguments, which allows for instance to model reliability of arguments varying over time. We show how E-TAF can be enriched by considering Structured Abstract Argumentation, adding compositional elements to the abstract arguments involved based on a simplified version of the recently introduced Dynamic Argumentation Frameworks.

Fixpoints play a key role in the mathematical set up of abstract argumentation theory but, we argue, have been relatively underexamined in the literature. The paper studies the logical structure underlying the computation via approximation sequences of the sort of fixpoints relevant in argumentation. Concretely, it presents a number of novel results on the fixed point theory underpinning the main Dung's semantics and, inspired by recent literature on the logical analysis of equilibrium computation in games, it provides a characterization of those semantics in terms of iterated model updates.

argumentation frameworks (AFs) provide the basis for various reasoning problems in the areas of Knowledge Representation and Artificial Intelligence. Efficient evaluation of AFs has thus been identified as an important research challenge. So far, implemented systems for evaluating AFs have either followed a straight-forward reduction-based approach or been limited to certain tractable classes of AFs. In this work, we present a generic approach for reasoning over AFs, based on the novel concept of complexity-sensitivity. Establishing the theoretical foundations of this approach, we derive several new complexity results for preferred, semistable and stage semantics which complement the current complexity landscape for abstract argumentation, providing further understanding on the sources of intractability of AF reasoning problems. The introduced generic framework exploits decision procedures for problems of lower complexity whenever possible. This allows, in particular, instantiations of the generic framework via harnessing in an iterative way current sophisticated Boolean satisfiability (SAT) solver technology for solving the considered AF reasoning problems. First experimental results show that the SAT-based instantiation of our novel approach outperforms existing systems.

We contribute to the investigation of possible outcomes of argumentation under semantics formulated using argumentation frameworks (AFs). In particular, we study this question for the labelling-based formulation of such semantics, generalizing previous work which has focused on extensions. In this paper, we restrict attention to the preferred and semi-stable semantics, showing that as long as we have a sufficient number of fresh arguments available, we can in fact argue for anything. That is, for any set of finite labellings there is an AF that enforces exactly this set as the outcome of argumentation.

The paper addresses how the information state of an agent relates to the arguments that the agent endorses. Information states are modeled in doxastic logic and arguments by recasting abstract argumentation theory in a modal logic format. The two perspectives are combined by an application of the theory of product logics, delivering sound and complete systems in which the interaction of arguments and beliefs is investigated.

dialectical frameworks (ADFs) have recently been proposed as a versatile generalization of Dung's abstract argumentation frameworks (AFs). In this paper, we present a comprehensive analysis of the computational complexity of ADFs. Our results show that while ADFs are one level up in the polynomial hierarchy compared to AFs, there is a useful subclass of ADFs which is as complex as AFs while arguably offering more modeling capacities. As a technical vehicle, we employ the approximation fixpoint theory of Denecker, Marek and Truszczyński, thus showing that it is also a useful tool for complexity analysis of operator-based semantics.

The study of extension-based semantics within the seminal abstract argumentation model of Dung has largely focused on definitional, algorithmic and complexity issues. In contrast, matters relating to comparisons of representational limits, in particular, the extent to which given collections of extensions are expressible within the formalism, have been under-developed. As such, little is known concerning conditions under which a candidate set of subsets of arguments are "realistic" in the sense that they correspond to the extensions of some argumentation framework AF for a semantics of interest. In this paper we present a formal basis for examining extension-based semantics in terms of the sets of extensions that these may express within a single AF. We provide a number of characterization theorems which guarantee the existence of AFs whose set of extensions satisfy specific conditions and derive preliminary complexity results for decision problems that require such characterizations.

We provide a logical analysis of abstract argumentation frameworks and their dynamics. Following previous work, we express attack relation and argument status by means of propositional variables and define acceptability criteria by formulas of propositional logic. We here study the dynamics of argumentation frameworks in terms of basic operations on these propositional variables, viz.

Reasoning with the maximally consistent subsets (MCS) of the premises is awell-known approach for handling contradictory information. We introduce two argumentation-based methods for doing so: a declarative approach that is related to Dung-style semantics for abstract argumentation, and a computational approach that is based on extensions of Gentzen-type proofs systems. This brings about a new perspective on reasoning with MCS which shows a strong link between the latter and argumentation systems, and which can be extended to related formalisms. A by-product of this is the introduction of a dynamic proof system for classical logic and rebuttal attacks, which is sound and complete with respect to Dung's stable semantics for the associated argumentation framework.