Abstract Argumentation with Subargument Relations

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2601.12038v1
• Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2026 12:54:10 GMT
• Title: Abstract Argumentation with Subargument Relations
• Authors: Beishui Liao,
• Abstract summary: Dung's abstract argumentation framework characterises argument acceptability solely via an attack relation.<n>This framework limits the ability to represent structural dependencies that are central in many structured argumentation formalisms.<n>We study abstract argumentation frameworks enriched with an explicit subargument relation, treated alongside attack as a basic relation.<n>This framework provides a principled abstraction of structural information and clarifies the role of subarguments in abstract acceptability reasoning.
• Score: 0.8460698440162889
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Dung's abstract argumentation framework characterises argument acceptability solely via an attack relation, deliberately abstracting from the internal structure of arguments. While this level of abstraction has enabled a rich body of results, it limits the ability to represent structural dependencies that are central in many structured argumentation formalisms, in particular subargument relations. Existing extensions, including bipolar argumentation frameworks, introduce support relations, but these do not capture the asymmetric and constitutive nature of subarguments or their interaction with attacks. In this paper, we study abstract argumentation frameworks enriched with an explicit subargument relation, treated alongside attack as a basic relation. We analyse how subargument relations interact with attacks and examine their impact on fundamental semantic properties. This framework provides a principled abstraction of structural information and clarifies the role of subarguments in abstract acceptability reasoning.

Related papers

• Comparative Expressivity for Structured Argumentation Frameworks with Uncertain Rules and Premises [0.7967000209136494]
  We study plausible instantiations of abstract models structured within rules and premises.<n>Our main technical contributions are the introduction of a notion of expressivity that can handle abstract and structured formalisms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-21T13:36:38Z)
• Explainable Chain-of-Thought Reasoning: An Empirical Analysis on State-Aware Reasoning Dynamics [69.00587226225232]
  We introduce a state-aware transition framework that abstracts CoT trajectories into structured latent dynamics.<n>To characterize the global structure of reasoning, we model their progression as a Markov chain.<n>This abstraction supports a range of analyses, including semantic role identification, temporal pattern visualization, and consistency evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-29T18:53:31Z)
• 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)
• Rejection in Abstract Argumentation: Harder Than Acceptance? [18.299322342860513]
  We consider flexible conditions for emphrejecting an argument from an extension, which we call rejection conditions (RCs) Rejection AFs are highly expressive, giving rise to natural problems on higher levels of the hierarchy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-20T09:37:04Z)
• A Unifying Framework for Learning Argumentation Semantics [47.84663434179473]
  We present a novel framework, which uses an Inductive Logic Programming approach to learn the acceptability semantics for several abstract and structured argumentation frameworks in an interpretable way.<n>Our framework outperforms existing argumentation solvers, thus opening up new future research directions in the area of formal argumentation and human-machine dialogues.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-18T20:18:05Z)
• Semi-Abstract Value-Based Argumentation Framework [0.0]
  Phan Minh Dung proposed abstract argumentation framework, which models argumentation using directed graphs where structureless arguments are the nodes and attacks among the arguments are the edges. This thesis showcases two such extensions -- value-based argumentation framework by Trevor Bench-Capon (2002) and semi-abstract argumentation framework by Esther Anna Corsi and Christian Ferm" The contribution of this thesis is two-fold. Firstly, the new semi-abstract value-based argumentation framework is introduced. This framework maps propositional formulae associated with individual arguments to a set of ordered values.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-25T13:10:56Z)
• A Formalisation of Abstract Argumentation in Higher-Order Logic [77.34726150561087]
  We present an approach for representing abstract argumentation frameworks based on an encoding into classical higher-order logic. This provides a uniform framework for computer-assisted assessment of abstract argumentation frameworks using interactive and automated reasoning tools.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-18T10:45:59Z)
• Intrinsic Argument Strength in Structured Argumentation: a Principled Approach [0.0]
  We study methods for assigning an argument its intrinsic strength, based on the strengths of the premises and inference rules used to form said argument. We first define a set of principles, which are properties that strength assigning methods might satisfy. We then propose two such methods and analyse which principles they satisfy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-01T11:54:15Z)
• Exploring Discourse Structures for Argument Impact Classification [48.909640432326654]
  This paper empirically shows that the discourse relations between two arguments along the context path are essential factors for identifying the persuasive power of an argument. We propose DisCOC to inject and fuse the sentence-level structural information with contextualized features derived from large-scale language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-02T06:49:19Z)
• Thinking About Causation: A Causal Language with Epistemic Operators [58.720142291102135]
  We extend the notion of a causal model with a representation of the state of an agent. On the side of the object language, we add operators to express knowledge and the act of observing new information. We provide a sound and complete axiomatization of the logic, and discuss the relation of this framework to causal team semantics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-30T12:16:45Z)

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.