Evaluating argument strength in quantitative argumentation systems has received increasing attention in the field of abstract argumentation. The concept of acceptability degree is widely adopted in gradual semantics, however, it may not be sufficient in many practical applications. In this paper, we provide a novel quantitative method called fuzzy labeling for fuzzy argumentation systems, in which a triple of acceptability, rejectability, and undecidability degrees is used to evaluate argument strength. Such a setting sheds new light on defining argument strength and provides a deeper understanding of the status of arguments. More specifically, we investigate the postulates of fuzzy labeling, which present the rationality requirements for semantics concerning the acceptability, rejectability, and undecidability degrees. We then propose a class of fuzzy labeling semantics conforming to the above postulates and investigate the relations between fuzzy labeling semantics and existing work in the literature.

In this paper, we investigate the revision of argumentation systems à la Dung. We focus on revision as minimal change of the arguments status. Contrarily to most of the previous works on the topic, the addition of new arguments is not allowed in the revision process, so that the revised system has to be obtained by modifying the attack relation only. We introduce a language of revision formulae which is expressive enough for enabling the representation of complex conditions on the acceptability of arguments in the revised system. We show how AGM belief revision postulates can be translated to the case of argumentation systems. We provide a corresponding representation theorem in terms of minimal change of the arguments statuses. Several distance-based revision operators satisfying the postulates are also pointed out, along with some methods to build revised argumentation systems. We also discuss some computational aspects of those methods.

In ASPIC-style structured argumentation an argument can rebut another argument by attacking its conclusion. Two ways of formalizing rebuttal have been proposed: In restricted rebuttal, the attacked conclusion must have been arrived at with a defeasible rule, whereas in unrestricted rebuttal, it may have been arrived at with a strict rule, as long as at least one of the antecedents of this strict rule was already defeasible. One systematic way of choosing between various possible definitions of a framework for structured argumentation is to study what rationality postulates are satisfied by which definition, for example whether the closure postulate holds, i.e. whether the accepted conclusions are closed under strict rules. While having some benefits, the proposal to use unrestricted rebuttal faces the problem that the closure postulate only holds for the grounded semantics but fails when other argumentation semantics are applied, whereas with restricted rebuttal the closure postulate always holds. In this paper we propose that ASPIC-style argumentation can benefit from keeping track not only of the attack relation between arguments, but also the relation of deductive joint support that holds between a set of arguments and an argument that was constructed from that set using a strict rule. By taking this deductive joint support relation into account while determining the extensions, the closure postulate holds with unrestricted rebuttal under all admissibility-based semantics. We define the semantics of deductive joint support through the flattening method.

CONSULT is a decision-support framework designed to help patients self-manage chronic conditions and adhere to agreed-upon treatment plans, in collaboration with healthcare professionals. The approach taken employs computational argumentation, a logic-based methodology that provides a formal means for reasoning with evidence by substantiating claims for and against particular conclusions. This paper outlines the architecture of CONSULT, illustrating how facts are gathered about the patient and various preferences of the patient and the clinician(s) involved. A logic-based representation of official treatment guidelines by various public health agencies is presented. Logical arguments are constructed from these facts and guidelines; these arguments are analysed to resolve inconsistencies concerning various treatment options and patient/clinician preferences. The claims of the justified arguments are the decisions recommended by CONSULT. A clinical example is presented which illustrates the use of CONSULT within the context of blood pressure management for secondary stroke prevention.

This paper studies two issues concerning relevance in structured argumentation in the context of the ASPIC+ framework, arising from the combined use of strict and defeasible inference rules. One issue arises if the strict inference rules correspond to classical logic. A longstanding problem is how the trivialising effect of the classical Ex Falso principle can be avoided while satisfying consistency and closure postulates. In this paper, this problem is solved by disallowing chaining of strict rules, resulting in a variant of the ASPIC+ framework called ASPIC*, and then disallowing the application of strict rules to inconsistent sets of formulas. Thus in effect Rescher & Manor's paraconsistent notion of weak consequence is embedded in ASPIC*. Another issue is minimality of arguments. If arguments can apply defeasible inference rules, then they cannot be required to have subset-minimal premises, since defeasible rules based on more information may well make an argument stronger. In this paper instead minimality is required of applications of strict rules throughout an argument. It is shown that under some plausible assumptions this does not affect the set of conclusions. In addition, circular arguments are in the new ASPIC* framework excluded in a way that satisfies closure and consistency postulates and that generates finitary argumentation frameworks if the knowledge base and set of defeasible rules are finite. For the latter result the exclusion of chaining of strict rules is essential. Finally, the combined results of this paper are shown to be a proper extension of classical-logic argumentation with preferences and defeasible rules.

The adoption of a generic contrariness notion in ASPIC+ substantially enhances its expressiveness with respect to other formalisms for structured argumentation. In particular, it opens the way to novel investigation directions, like the use of multivalued logics in the construction of arguments. This paper points out however that in the current version of ASPIC+ a serious technical difficulty related with generic contrariness is present. With the aim of preserving the same level of generality, the paper provides a solution based on a novel notion of closure of the contrariness relation at the level of sets of formulas and an abstract representation of conflicts between sets of arguments. The proposed solution is shown to satisfy the same rationality postulates as ASPIC+ and represents a starting point for further technical and conceptual developments in structured argumentation.

Recently, ranking-based semantics is proposed to rank-order arguments from the most acceptable to the weakest one(s), which provides a graded assessment to arguments. In general, the ranking on arguments is derived from the strength values of the arguments. Categoriser function is a common approach that assigns a strength value to a tree of arguments. When it encounters an argument system with cycles, then the categoriser strength is the solution of the non-linear equations. However, there is no detail about the existence and uniqueness of the solution, and how to find the solution (if exists). In this paper, we will cope with these issues via fixed point technique. In addition, we define the categoriser-based ranking semantics in light of categoriser strength, and investigate some general properties of it. Finally, the semantics is shown to satisfy some of the axioms that a ranking-based semantics should satisfy.

In this paper, we investigate the revision of argumentation systems à la Dung. We focus on revision as minimal change of the arguments status. Contrarily to most of the previous works on the topic, the addition of new arguments is not allowed in the revision process, so that the revised system has to be obtained by modifying the attack relation only. We introduce a language of revision formulae which is expressive enough for enabling the representation of complex conditions on the acceptability of arguments in the revised system. We show how AGM belief revision postulates can be translated to the case of argumentation systems. We provide a corresponding representation theorem in terms of minimal change of the arguments statuses. Several distance-based revision operators satisfying the postulates are also pointed out, along with some methods to build revised argumentation systems. We also discuss some computational aspects of those methods.

Properties like logical closure and consistency are important properties in any logical reasoning system. Caminada and Amgoud showed that not every logic-based argument system satisfies these relevant properties. But under conditions like closure under contraposition or transposition of the monotonic part of the underlying logic, ASPIC-like systems satisfy these properties. In contrast, the logical closure and consistency properties are not well-understood for other well-known and widely applied systems like logic programming or assumption based argumentation. Though conditions like closure under contraposition or transposition seem intuitive in ASPIC-like systems, they rule out many sensible ASPIC-like systems that satisfy both properties of closure and consistency. We present a new condition referred to as the self-contradiction axiom that guarantees the consistency property in both ASPIC-like and assumption-based systems and is implied by both properties of closure under contraposition or transposition. We develop a logic-associated abstract argumentation framework, by associating abstract argumentation with abstract logics to represent the conclusions of arguments. We show that logic-associated abstract argumentation frameworks capture ASPIC-like systems (without preferences) and assumption-based argumentation. We present two simple and natural properties of compactness and cohesion in logic-associated abstract argumentation frameworks and show that they capture the logical closure and consistency properties. We demonstrate that in both assumption-based argumentation and ASPIC-like systems, cohesion follows naturally from the self-contradiction axiom. We further give a translation from ASPIC-like systems (without preferences) into equivalent assumption-based systems that keeps the self-contradiction axiom invariant.

Dungs abstract argumentation theory can be seen as a general framework for non-monotonic reasoning. An important question is then: what is the class of logics that can be subsumed as instantiations of this theory? The goal of this paper is to identify and study the large class of logic-based instantiations of Dungs theory which correspond to the maxi-consistent operator, i.e. to the function which returns maximal consistent subsets of an inconsistent knowledge base. In other words, we study the class of instantiations where very extension of the argumentation system corresponds to exactly one maximal consistent subset of the knowledge base. We show that an attack relation belonging to this class must be conflict-dependent, must not be valid, must not be conflict-complete, must not be symmetric etc. Then, we show that some attack relations serve as lower or upper bounds of the class (e.g. if an attack relation contains canonical undercut then it is not a member of this class). By using our results, we show for all existing attack relations whether or not they belong to this class. We also define new attack relations which are members of this class. Finally, we interpret our results and discuss more general questions, like: what is the added value of argumentation in such a setting? We believe that this work is a first step towards achieving our long-term goal, which is to better understand the role of argumentation and, particularly, the expressivity of logic-based instantiations of Dung-style argumentation frameworks.