Tenability and Weak Semantics: Modeling Non-uniform Defense -- Extended Version

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.02024v1
• Date: Sun, 03 May 2026 19:20:13 GMT
• Title: Tenability and Weak Semantics: Modeling Non-uniform Defense -- Extended Version
• Abstract summary: 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.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: In Dung-style abstract argumentation, various semantics capture notions of acceptability of arguments. The admissibility semantics capture the notion that an argument can be consistently defended from any potential counterargument. Weak semantics often relax the demands of admissibility by restricting which counterarguments must be taken seriously (e.g., discounting self-defeating or otherwise incoherent attacks). Many prominent proposals for weak semantics remain extension-based in a stronger sense. While these semantics discount attacks from arguments which are considered unreasonable, they still require a uniform defense against all reasonable arguments, even if they are collectively inconsistent. This uniformity can be too demanding when defensibility is inherently strategic, and thus the appropriate reply depends on the opponent's line of attack. We introduce tenability, a family of dialogue-based semantics that formalize when a designated argument (or a set of arguments) can be maintained in debate by a proponent against any conflict-free attack which the opponent may present. The approach is motivated by three natural benchmark patterns: self-defeating attack, floating assignment, and disjunctive reinstatement, on which tenability behaves differently from all weak semantics previously considered in the literature. We define three variants -- static tenability, tenability, and strong tenability -- via monotone commitment games over finite conflict-free moves, differing in the obligations imposed on the disputants. We establish the relative strength of these notions, prove implications and separations with previously studied weak semantics, and we analyze computational complexity on finite frameworks: deciding static tenability is $Π^P_2$-complete, while deciding tenability and strong tenability is PSPACE-complete.

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)
• Truth or Sophistry? LoFa: A Benchmark for LLM Robustness Against Logical Fallacies [51.39569894108518]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit strong semantic capabilities, yet their resilience to manipulative linguistic patterns such as logical fallacies remains underexplored.<n>We introduce LoFa (Logical Fallacy), a benchmark for evaluating LLM robustness against fallacies.<n>We also propose Logical Fallacy Resistance at k (LFR@k), a metric that quantifies resistance to fallacious attacks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-30T02:17:45Z)
• Provably Secure Agent Guardrail [89.79561918065122]
  Existing defense architectures rely on empirical semantic guardrails and probabilistic large model adjudicators.<n>This paper proposes a new security paradigm for agents based on the fundamental limitations of logical reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-28T02:12:41Z)
• REALISTA: Realistic Latent Adversarial Attacks that Elicit LLM Hallucinations [60.451310947394596]
  We formulate hallucination elicitation as a constrained optimization problem.<n>The goal is to find semantically coherent adversarial prompts that are equivalent to benign user prompts.<n>We propose REALISTA, a realistic latent-space attack framework.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-12T23:13:50Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Turning Logic Against Itself : Probing Model Defenses Through Contrastive Questions [50.40122190627256]
  We introduce POATE, a novel jailbreak technique that harnesses contrastive reasoning to provoke unethical responses.<n>PoATE crafts semantically opposing intents and integrates them with adversarial templates, steering models toward harmful outputs with remarkable subtlety.<n>To counter this, we propose Intent-Aware CoT and Reverse Thinking CoT, which decompose queries to detect malicious intent and reason in reverse to evaluate and reject harmful responses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-03T15:40:03Z)
• Defense semantics of argumentation: revisit [0.0]
  We introduce a novel semantics, called defense semantics, for Dung's abstract argumentation frameworks. In terms of defense semantics, we show that defenses related to self-attacked arguments and arguments in 3-cycles are unsatifiable under any situation. We also introduce a new notion of defense equivalence of AFs, and compare defense equivalence with standard equivalence and strong equivalence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-20T21:51:45Z)
• Many-valued Argumentation, Conditionals and a Probabilistic Semantics for Gradual Argumentation [3.9571744700171743]
  We propose a general approach to define a many-valued preferential interpretation of gradual argumentation semantics. As a proof of concept, in the finitely-valued case, an Answer set Programming approach is proposed for conditional reasoning. The paper also develops and discusses a probabilistic semantics for gradual argumentation, which builds on the many-valued conditional semantics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-14T22:10:46Z)
• Fuzzy Labeling Semantics for Quantitative Argumentation [0.0]
  We provide a novel quantitative method called fuzzy labeling for fuzzy argumentation systems. A triple of acceptability, rejectability, and undecidability degrees is used to evaluate argument strength.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-15T08:31:36Z)
• 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)
• Towards Robustness Against Natural Language Word Substitutions [87.56898475512703]
  Robustness against word substitutions has a well-defined and widely acceptable form, using semantically similar words as substitutions. Previous defense methods capture word substitutions in vector space by using either $l$-ball or hyper-rectangle.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-28T17:55:08Z)

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.