In this paper, we present a general framework for ranking sets of arguments in abstract argumentation frameworks based on their plausibility of acceptance. We present a generalisation of Dung’s extension semantics as extension-ranking semantics, which induce a preorder over the power set of all arguments, allowing us to state that one set is “closer” to being acceptable than another. To evaluate the extension-ranking semantics, we introduce a number of principles that a well-behaved extensionranking semantics should satisfy. We consider several simple base relations, each of which models a single central aspect of argumentative reasoning. The combination of these base relations provides us with a family of extension-ranking semantics.

In this paper, we introduce a new family of argument-ranking semantics which can be seen as a refinement of the classification of arguments into skeptically accepted, credulously accepted and rejected. To this end we use so-called social ranking functions which have been developed recently to rank individuals based on their performance in groups. We provide necessary and sufficient conditions for a social ranking function to give rise to an argument-ranking semantics satisfying the desired refinement property.

We propose two soft notions of the notion of admissibility in abstract argumentation. The first one weakens the defence notion by allowing, to a certain degree, undefended attacks, and the second one allows, to a certain degree, conflicts within sets of arguments. We analyse these new semantical notions based on the computational complexity of optimisation and approximation. Finally, we discuss and analyse soft notions for preferred semantics.

For propositional beliefs, there are well-established connections between belief revision, defeasible conditionals, and nonmonotonic inference. In argumentative contexts, such connections have not yet been investigated. On the one hand, the exact relationship between formal argumentation and nonmonotonic inference relations is a research topic that keeps on eluding researchers despite recently intensified efforts, whereas argumentative revision has been studied in numerous works during recent years. In this paper, we show that relationships between belief revision, defeasible conditionals, and nonmonotonic inference similar to those in propositional logic hold in argumentative contexts as well. We first define revision operators for abstract dialectical frameworks, and use such revision operators to define dynamic conditionals by means of the Ramsey test. We show that such conditionals can be equivalently defined using a total preorder over three-valued interpretations, and study the inferential behaviour of the resulting conditional inference relations.

Abstract dialectical frameworks (in short, ADFs) are a unifying model of formal argumentation, where argumentative relations between arguments are represented by assigning acceptance conditions to atomic arguments. This idea is generalized by letting acceptance conditions being assigned to complex formulas, resulting in conditional abstract dialectical frameworks (in short, cADFs). We define the semantics of cADFs in terms of a non-truth-functional four-valued logic, and study the semantics in-depth, by showing existence results and proving that all semantics are generalizations of the corresponding semantics for ADFs.

We interpret and formalise ordinal conditional functions (OCFs) in abstract argumentation frameworks based on ideas and concepts defined for conditional logics. There, these functions are used to rank interpretations, and we adapt them to rank extensions instead. Using conflict-freeness and admissibility as two essential principles to define the semantics of OCFs, we obtain a framework that allows to rank sets of arguments wrt. their plausibility. We analyse the properties of this framework in-depth, and in doing so we establish a formal bridge between the approaches of abstract argumentation and conditional logics.

Existing fair exchange protocols usually neglect consideration of cost when assessing their fairness. However, in an environment with non-negligible transaction cost, e.g., public blockchains, high or unexpected transaction cost might be an obstacle for wide-spread adoption of fair exchange protocols in business applications. For example, as of 2021-12-17, the initialization of the FairSwap protocol on the Ethereum blockchain requires the selling party to pay a fee of approx. 349.20 USD per exchange. We address this issue by defining cost fairness, which can be used to assess two-party exchange protocols including implied transaction cost. We show that in an environment with non-negligible transaction cost where one party has to initialize the exchange protocol and the other party can leave the exchange at any time cost fairness cannot be achieved.

Abstract dialectical frameworks (in short, ADFs) are one of the most general and unifying approaches to formal argumentation. As the semantics of ADFs are based on three-valued interpretations, we ask which monotonic three-valued logic allows to capture the main semantic concepts underlying ADFs. We show that possibilistic logic is the unique logic that can faithfully encode all other semantical concepts for ADFs. Based on this result, we also characterise strong equivalence and introduce possibilistic ADFs.

Extension-based semantics in abstract argumentation provide a criterion to determine whether a set of arguments is acceptable or not. In this paper, we present the notion of extension-ranking semantics, which determines a preordering over sets of arguments, where one set is deemed more plausible than another if it is somehow more acceptable. We obtain extension-based semantics as a special case of this new approach, but it also allows us to make more fine-grained distinctions, such as one set being "more complete'' or "more admissible'' than another. We define a number of general principles to classify extension-ranking semantics and develop concrete approaches. We also study the relation between extension-ranking semantics and argument-ranking based semantics, which rank individual arguments instead of sets of arguments.

For propositional beliefs, there are well-established connections between belief revision, defeasible conditionals and nonmonotonic inference. In argumentative contexts, such connections have not yet been investigated. On the one hand, the exact relationship between formal argumentation and nonmonotonic inference relations is a research topic that keeps on eluding researchers despite recently intensified efforts, whereas argumentative revision has been studied in numerous works during recent years. In this paper, we show that similar relationships between belief revision, defeasible conditionals and nonmonotonic inference hold in argumentative contexts as well. We first define revision operators for abstract dialectical frameworks, and use such revision operators to define dynamic conditionals by means of the Ramsey test. We show that such conditionals can be equivalently defined using a total preorder over three-valued interpretations, and study the inferential behaviour of the resulting conditional inference relations.

In abstract argumentation, the admissible semantics can be said to distinguish the preferred semantics in the sense that argumentation frameworks with the same admissible extensions also have the same preferred extensions. In this paper we present an exhaustive study of such distinguishability relationships, including those between sets of semantics. We further examine restricted classes of argumentation frameworks, such as self-attack-free and acyclic frameworks. We discuss the relevance of our results in the context of the argumentation framework elicitation problem.

This work focuses on generalizing the existence problems for extensions in abstract argumentation to incomplete argumentation frameworks. In this extended model, incomplete or conflicting knowledge about the state of the arguments and attacks are allowed. We propose possible and necessary variations of the existence and nonemptiness problems, originally defined for (complete) argumentation frameworks, to extend these problems to incomplete argumentation frameworks. While the computational complexity of existence problems is already known for the standard model, we provide a full analysis of the complexity for incomplete argumentation frameworks using the most prominent semantics, namely, the conflict-free, admissible, complete, grounded, preferred, and stable semantics. We show that the complexity rises from NP-completeness to ∏p2-completeness for most "necessary" problem variants when uncertainty is allowed.