In formal argumentation, a distinction can be made between extension-based semantics, where sets of arguments are either (jointly) accepted or not, and ranking-based semantics, where grades of acceptability are assigned to arguments. Another important distinction is that between abstract approaches, that abstract away from the content of arguments, and structured approaches, that specify a method of constructing argument graphs on the basis of a knowledge base. While ranking-based semantics have been extensively applied to abstract argumentation, few work has been done on ranking-based semantics for structured argumentation. In this paper, we make a systematic investigation into the behaviour of ranking-based semantics applied to existing formalisms for structured argumentation. We show that a wide class of ranking-based semantics gives rise to so-called culpability measures, and are relatively robust to specific choices in argument construction methods.

Abductive forgetting is removing variables from a logical formula while maintaining its abductive explanations. It is defined in either of two ways, depending on its intended application. Both differ from the usual forgetting, which maintains consequences rather than explanations. Differently from that, abductive forgetting from a propositional formula may not be expressed by any propositional formula. A necessary and sufficient condition tells when it is. Checking this condition is \P{3}-complete, and is in \P{4} if minimality of explanations is required. A way to guarantee expressibility of abductive forgetting is to switch from propositional to default logic. Another is to introduce new variables.

We address the issue of quantitatively assessing the severity of inconsistencies in nonmonotonic frameworks. While measuring inconsistency in classical logics has been investigated for some time now, taking the nonmonotonicity into account poses new challenges. In order to tackle them, we focus on the structure of minimal strongly kb-inconsistent subsets of a knowledge base kb---a generalization of minimal inconsistency to arbitrary, possibly nonmonotonic, frameworks. We propose measures based on this notion and investigate their behavior in a nonmonotonic setting by revisiting existing rationality postulates, analyzing the compliance of the proposed measures with these postulates, and by investigating their computational complexity.

Clearly, the second approach is more cautious. Intuitively, it demands that there is a specific argument for τ that is contained in each rational stance a reasoner can take given Γ, DRules, and SRules. The first option doesn't bind the acceptability of τ to a specific argument: it is sufficient if according to each rational stance there is some argument for τ. In Default Logic, the main representational tool is that of a default rule, or simply a default.

In [3] we presented a prototype of a system that enables users to explore arguments for a given topic. This involves these steps: 1. Argument identification. In the first step, arguments concerning a given topic are identified in a given text and attacking and supporting relationships between the propositions are established. The result is an argumentation graph. In the future we hope to use argumentation mining techniques to automate this step. At this time, this is done manually by marking up some text.

Active Learning Method (ALM) is a soft computing method used for modeling and control based on fuzzy logic. All operators defined for fuzzy sets must serve as either fuzzy S-norm or fuzzy T-norm. Despite being a powerful modeling method, ALM does not possess operators which serve as S-norms and T-norms which deprive it of a profound analytical expression/form. This paper introduces two new operators based on morphology which satisfy the following conditions: First, they serve as fuzzy S-norm and T-norm. Second, they satisfy Demorgans law, so they complement each other perfectly. These operators are investigated via three viewpoints: Mathematics, Geometry and fuzzy logic.

In this paper, we address the problem of change in an abstract argumentation system. We focus on a particular change: the addition of a new argument which interacts with previous arguments. We study the impact of such an addition on the outcome of the argumentation system, more particularly on the set of its extensions. Several properties for this change operation are defined by comparing the new set of extensions to the initial one, these properties are called structural when the comparisons are based on set-cardinality or set-inclusion relations. Several other properties are proposed where comparisons are based on the status of some particular arguments: the accepted arguments; these properties refer to the evolution of this status during the change, e.g., Monotony and Priority to Recency. All these properties may be more or less desirable according to specific applications. They are studied under two particular semantics: the grounded and preferred semantics.