Cogent argument extensions are weakly admissible but not vice versa

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2511.09600v1
• Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2025 01:01:14 GMT
• Title: Cogent argument extensions are weakly admissible but not vice versa
• Abstract summary: We show the relationship between two non-admissible argumentation framework semantics: cogent and weakly admissible semantics.<n>We prove that, while cogent extensions are weakly admissible, the converse is not true.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: In this research note, we show the relationship between two non-admissible argumentation framework semantics: cogent and weakly admissible semantics. We prove that, while cogent extensions are weakly admissible, the converse is not true.

Related papers

• Tenability and Weak Semantics: Modeling Non-uniform Defense -- Extended Version [0.0]
  Weak semantics relax the demands of admissibility by restricting which counterarguments must be taken seriously.<n>We introduce tenability, a family of dialogue-based semantics that formalize when a designated argument can be maintained against any conflict-free attack.<n>We define three variants -- static tenability, tenability, and strong tenability -- via monotone commitment games over finite conflict-free moves.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-03T19:20:13Z)
• Rejecting Arguments Based on Doubt in Structured Bipolar Argumentation [2.6754173570117303]
  This paper develops a new approach to computational argumentation informed by philosophical and linguistic views.<n>It takes into account two ideas that have received little attention in the literature on computational argumentation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-03T09:09:19Z)
• Toward Understanding the Transferability of Adversarial Suffixes in Large Language Models [70.11800794130394]
  Discrete optimization-based jailbreaking attacks aim to generate nonsensical suffixes that, when appended onto input prompts, elicit disallowed content.<n>We find that prompt semantic similarity only weakly correlates with transfer success.<n>These findings lead to a more fine-grained understanding of transferability, which we use in interventional experiments to showcase how our statistical analysis can translate into practical improvements in attack success.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-24T20:28:49Z)
• Deontic Argumentation [0.0]
  Some recent results show that grounded semantics do not support weak permission when there is a conflict between two obligations.<n>We provide a definition of Deontic Argumentation Theory that accounts for weak permission, and we recall the result about grounded semantics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-30T04:50:07Z)
• Reasoning is about giving reasons [55.56111618153049]
  We show that we can identify and extract the logical structure of natural language arguments in three popular reasoning datasets with high accuracies.<n>Our approach supports all forms of reasoning that depend on the logical structure of the natural language argument.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-20T07:26:53Z)
• Is the Top Still Spinning? Evaluating Subjectivity in Narrative Understanding [40.78154629252038]
  Forcing binary labels upon ambiguous claims lowers the reliability of evaluation.<n>We introduce LLM-generated edits of summaries as a method of providing a nuanced evaluation of claims.<n>We show that ARM produces a absolute 21% improvement in annotator agreement on claim faithfulness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-01T19:08:24Z)
• Calibrating Verbal Uncertainty as a Linear Feature to Reduce Hallucinations [51.92795774118647]
  We find that verbal uncertainty'' is governed by a single linear feature in the representation space of LLMs.<n>We show that this has only moderate correlation with the actual semantic uncertainty'' of the model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-18T17:51:04Z)
• Correctness is not Faithfulness in RAG Attributions [47.48625339105129]
  Explicitly citing source documents allows users to verify generated responses and increases trust.<n>Prior work largely evaluates citation correctness - whether cited documents support the corresponding statements.<n>To establish trust in attributed answers, we must examine both citation correctness and citation faithfulness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-23T21:57:11Z)
• Weak Permission is not Well-Founded, Grounded and Stable [0.0]
  We show that it is not possible to capture weak permission in the presence of deontic conflicts under the well-founded, grounded and (sceptical) stable semantics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-15T23:14:30Z)
• Mitigating Misleading Chain-of-Thought Reasoning with Selective Filtering [59.495717939664246]
  Large language models have manifested remarkable capabilities by leveraging chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning techniques to solve intricate questions. We propose a novel approach called the selective filtering reasoner (SelF-Reasoner) that assesses the entailment relationship between the question and the candidate reasoning chain. SelF-Reasoner improves the fine-tuned T5 baseline consistently over the ScienceQA, ECQA, and LastLetter tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-28T06:28:35Z)
• Measurement incompatibility is strictly stronger than disturbance [44.99833362998488]
  Heisenberg argued that measurements irreversibly alter the state of the system on which they are acting, causing an irreducible disturbance on subsequent measurements. This article shows that measurement incompatibility is indeed a sufficient condition for irreversibility of measurement disturbance. However, we exhibit a toy theory, termed the minimal classical theory (MCT), that is a counterexample for the converse implication.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-26T13:47:00Z)
• Admissibility in Strength-based Argumentation: Complexity and Algorithms (Extended Version with Proofs) [1.5828697880068698]
  We study the adaptation of admissibility-based semantics to Strength-based Argumentation Frameworks (StrAFs) Especially, we show that the strong admissibility defined in the literature does not satisfy a desirable property, namely Dung's fundamental lemma. We propose a translation in pseudo-Boolean constraints for computing (strong and weak) extensions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-05T18:42:04Z)
• Maieutic Prompting: Logically Consistent Reasoning with Recursive Explanations [71.2950434944196]
  We develop Maieutic Prompting, which infers a correct answer to a question even from the noisy and inconsistent generations of language models. Maieutic Prompting achieves up to 20% better accuracy than state-of-the-art prompting methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-24T06:36:42Z)
• On the preferred extensions of argumentation frameworks: bijections with naive sets [0.2580765958706853]
  We consider the case where an argumentation framework is naive-bijective. We show that it is tractable for frameworks with bounded in-degree.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-11T08:42:55Z)
• Contrastive Explanations for Argumentation-Based Conclusions [5.1398743023989555]
  We discuss contrastive explanations for formal argumentation. We show under which conditions contrastive explanations are meaningful, and how argumentation allows us to make implicit foils explicit.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-07T15:00:47Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.