In formal argumentation, a distinction can be made between extension-based semantics,
where sets of arguments are either (jointly) accepted or not, and ranking-based semantics …

Logical argumentation is a well-known approach to modeling non-monotonic reasoning with
conflicting information. In this paper we provide a comprehensive postulate-based study of …

Assumption-based argumentation is one of the most prominent formalisms for logical (or
structured) argumentation, with tight links to different forms of defeasible reasoning. In this …

In this paper we provide a detailed analysis of the inference process induced by logical
argumentation frameworks. The frameworks may be defined with respect to any …

Rephrasing argumentation semantics in terms of subsets of defeasible elements allows for
gaining new insights for reasoning about acceptance in established fragments of the central …

Simple contrapositive assumption-based argumentation frameworks are a general setting
for structured argumentation, providing a robust approach to reasoning with arguments and …

Enforcement, adjusting an argumentation framework such that a certain set of arguments
becomes acceptable, is an important research topic within the study of dynamic …

We study the logical foundations of Dung-style argumentation frameworks. Logicbased
methods in the context of argumentation theory are described from two perspectives:(a) a …

Structured argumentation formalisms, such as ASPIC+, offer a formal model of defeasible
reasoning. Usually such formalisms are highly parametrized and modular in order to provide …

In many expert and everyday reasoning contexts it is very useful to reason on the basis of
defeasible assumptions. For instance, if the information at hand is incomplete we often use …