Satisfying Rationality Postulates of Structured Argumentation Through Deductive Support -- Technical Report

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.21515v1
• Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2026 10:23:11 GMT
• Title: Satisfying Rationality Postulates of Structured Argumentation Through Deductive Support -- Technical Report
• Abstract summary: This paper introduces Deductive ASPIC$ominus$, a novel framework that integrates gen-rebuttals from ASPIC$ominus$ with the Joint Support Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks.<n>We show that Deductive ASPIC$ominus$ satisfies all five rationality postulates under a version of preferred semantics.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: ASPIC-style structured argumentation frameworks provide a formal basis for reasoning in artificial intelligence by combining internal argument structure with abstract argumentation semantics. A key challenge in these frameworks is ensuring compliance with five critical rationality postulates: closure, direct consistency, indirect consistency, non-interference, and crash-resistance. Recent approaches, including ASPIC$^{\ominus}$ and Deductive ASPIC$-$, have made significant progress but fall short of meeting all postulates simultaneously under a credulous semantics (e.g. preferred) in the presence of undercuts. This paper introduces Deductive ASPIC$^{\ominus}$, a novel framework that integrates gen-rebuttals from ASPIC$^{\ominus}$ with the Joint Support Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks (JSBAFs) of Deductive ASPIC$-$, incorporating preferences. We show that Deductive ASPIC$^{\ominus}$ satisfies all five rationality postulates under a version of preferred semantics. This work opens new avenues for further research on robust and logically sound structured argumentation systems.

Related papers

• Evidential-Based Higher-Order Set Argumentation Framework [2.7020803130322117]
  Evidential-Based Higher-Order Set Argumentation Framework (EHSAF)<n>We develop two complete semantics for EHSAFs.<n>We prove their equivalence under support-acyclicity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-28T01:46:39Z)
• A Minimal $κ$--$τ$ Logic for Risk-Sensitive Abduction [0.0]
  This paper argues that in risk-sensitive domains, the timing of commitment is itself a governed decision.<n>We present a minimal $$--$$ logical framework built on two primitives.<n>The framework provides formal machinery for domains in which the distinction between highly likely and commit-worthy is operationally consequential.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-08T15:35:32Z)
• Abstract Argumentation with Subargument Relations [0.8460698440162889]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-17T12:54:10Z)
• ARCHE: A Novel Task to Evaluate LLMs on Latent Reasoning Chain Extraction [70.53044880892196]
  We introduce a novel task named Latent Reasoning Chain Extraction (ARCHE), in which models must decompose complex reasoning arguments into combinations of standard reasoning paradigms in the form of a Reasoning Logic Tree (RLT)<n>To facilitate this task, we release ARCHE Bench, a new benchmark derived from 70 Nature Communications articles, including more than 1,900 references and 38,000 viewpoints.<n> Evaluations on 10 leading LLMs on ARCHE Bench reveal that models exhibit a trade-off between REA and EC, and none are yet able to extract a complete and standard reasoning chain.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-16T07:37:09Z)
• Implicit Reasoning in Large Language Models: A Comprehensive Survey [67.53966514728383]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong generalization across a wide range of tasks.<n>Recent studies have shifted attention from explicit chain-of-thought prompting toward implicit reasoning.<n>This survey introduces a taxonomy centered on execution paradigms, shifting the focus from representational forms to computational strategies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-02T14:16:02Z)
• 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)
• Rational Inference in Formal Concept Analysis [0.4499833362998487]
  Defeasible conditionals are a form of non-monotonic inference.<n>KLM framework defines a semantics for the propositional case of defeasible conditionals.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-07T20:15:20Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Rationale-Augmented Ensembles in Language Models [53.45015291520658]
  We reconsider rationale-augmented prompting for few-shot in-context learning. We identify rationale sampling in the output space as the key component to robustly improve performance. We demonstrate that rationale-augmented ensembles achieve more accurate and interpretable results than existing prompting approaches.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-02T06:20:57Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Technical Report of "Deductive Joint Support for Rational Unrestricted Rebuttal" [1.3706331473063877]
  In ASPIC-style structured argumentation an argument can rebut another argument by attacking its conclusion. In restricted rebuttal, the attacked conclusion must have been arrived at with a defeasible rule. 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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-05-07T17:19:18Z)

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.