Double Rectified Linear Unit-based Modular Semantics for Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation Framework

Francesco Parisi; Gianvincenzo Alfano; Irina Trubitsyna; Lucio La Cava; Sergio Greco

arxiv: 2605.02551 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-04 · 💻 cs.AI

Double Rectified Linear Unit-based Modular Semantics for Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation Framework

Gianvincenzo Alfano , Sergio Greco , Lucio La Cava , Francesco Parisi , Irina Trubitsyna This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 18:13 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.AI

keywords Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation FrameworksGradual SemanticsDouble Rectified Linear UnitRationality PostulatesConvergenceArgument AcceptabilityModular Semantics

0 comments

The pith

A double rectified linear unit update rule produces intuitive final strengths for arguments in quantitative bipolar frameworks and converges beyond acyclic cases.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper presents a new gradual semantics for quantitative bipolar argumentation frameworks that updates each argument's initial strength by combining the effects of its attackers and supporters. Earlier approaches frequently produced results that clashed with intuitive judgments even on simple acyclic examples. The proposed semantics uses a double rectified linear unit to perform this update in a modular way, yielding strengths that better match common-sense expectations while meeting established rationality postulates. It further proves that the iterative process converges for all acyclic frameworks and for wider classes of cyclic ones.

Core claim

The central claim is that a modular semantics built around the double rectified linear unit as the strength-update function computes final argument acceptability in QBAFs in a manner that aligns closely with intuitive expectations and satisfies the rationality postulates previously defined in the literature. The same update rule is shown to guarantee convergence not only on acyclic QBAFs but also on broader families of cyclic frameworks.

What carries the argument

The double rectified linear unit (DReLU) update function that modularly revises each argument's strength from its initial value, its attackers, and its supporters.

If this is right

Argument acceptability results become more reliable for both acyclic and certain cyclic QBAFs.
The semantics satisfies the established rationality postulates from prior literature.
Convergence is guaranteed on all acyclic frameworks and on additional cyclic ones.
The modular structure allows the same update rule to be applied uniformly across different argument configurations.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The approach may support more stable automated reasoning in multi-agent debate systems that contain feedback loops.
Empirical tests on real-world debate datasets could reveal whether the intuitive alignment holds outside hand-crafted examples.
The reuse of a rectified-linear-unit form hints at possible bridges between neural-network activation functions and gradual argumentation semantics.

Load-bearing premise

The double rectified linear unit update will consistently produce strengths that match intuitive expectations and obey the rationality postulates without counterexamples in the claimed classes of frameworks.

What would settle it

A concrete QBAF (acyclic or cyclic) on which the computed final strengths violate one of the rationality postulates or diverge from the intuitive acceptability ordering that a human reader would expect.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.02551 by Francesco Parisi, Gianvincenzo Alfano, Irina Trubitsyna, Lucio La Cava, Sergio Greco.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: QBAFs of Example 1 (left) and Example 2 (right). Num view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: (From left) QBAFs ∆5 and ∆6 of Examples 5 and 6. As observed for MLP-based semantics, this semantics also does not capture the expected behavior. DF-QuAD. The aggregation and update functions of Discontinuity-free Quantitative Argumentation Debate semantics (dfq) [Rago et al., 2016], where π is used (instead of α) to distinguish from the sum-based aggregation, are: π(a) = Y (b,a)∈R (1 − ρ(b)) − Y (b,a)∈S … view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: QBAF ∆7 of Examples 7 and 9 (left), and QBAF ∆ discussed in the proof of Proposition 4 (right). Clearly, sign(δq(a))=sign(α(a)) for any q ∈ {max, sum}. The next proposition states that δq increases w.r.t. α. Proposition 1. Given a QBAF ⟨A, R, S, τ ⟩ and two arguments a, b ∈ A such that α(a) ≥ α(b), then δq(a) ≥ δq(b) holds for any q ∈ {sum, max}. The first semantics we introduce, called modified Quadrati… view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: (Left) Functions DReLU (black dashed line) and f ∈ {dDReLUk=2, dDReLUk=100, tanh} (orange, green, and gray colored lines). (Right) Approximation error |DReLU − f|. 5 Convergence Analysis Given a QBAF and an argument a ∈ A, we are interested in the existence of the limit: lim i→∞ ρ i (a), where ρ 0 (a) = τa and ρ j (a) = ρ(ρ j−1 (a)). If the limit exists, we say that the computation of ρ converges. The fol… view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Strength of arguments b1 (red) and c1 (blue) from the QBAF of view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks (QBAFs) provide an alternative approach to computing argument acceptability in Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks (BAFs). Each argument is assigned an initial strength, which is then updated to a final strength by considering the influence of both its attackers and supporters. Over the years, several semantics have been proposed to compute argument acceptability in QBAFs, yet they often yield divergent or counterintuitive results, even for simple acyclic cases. We introduce novel gradual semantics for QBAFs that address these limitations, producing results that align more closely with intuitive expectations, while satisfying established rationality postulates from the literature. Furthermore, we study its convergence behavior, proving that it converges not only for acyclic QBAFs but also for broader classes of cyclic frameworks.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper defines a DReLU-based modular gradual semantics for QBAFs that claims to fix counterintuitive results and extend convergence to more cyclic cases, with proofs for postulates and convergence.

read the letter

The paper introduces novel gradual semantics for QBAFs based on the double rectified linear unit. This is the main new thing, and it targets the problems where prior semantics gave divergent or counterintuitive acceptability scores even in straightforward acyclic setups. It does well by grounding the semantics in an existing activation function and then proving that it satisfies the rationality postulates from the literature. The convergence proof is also useful, as it covers not only acyclic QBAFs but also broader classes of cyclic frameworks. This kind of formal work makes the proposal more reliable than one that just defines a new function without analysis. The softer area is the claim about aligning with intuitive expectations. The abstract states that the results are closer to what one would expect, but the real test is in the examples and any comparisons provided in the paper. If those hold up without counterexamples, it strengthens the case; otherwise, it might be more of an incremental tweak. The convergence for cyclic cases also depends on how broad that class really is and whether the proof assumes anything restrictive about the initial strengths. This is aimed at researchers in computational argumentation and AI systems that model debates or decisions with argument strengths. A reader focused on gradual semantics would get value from the new modular approach and the extended convergence results. I recommend sending it to peer review. The contribution is specific, the formal claims are checkable, and the subfield can use new options that come with proofs of their properties.

Referee Report

0 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper introduces novel gradual semantics for Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks (QBAFs) based on the Double Rectified Linear Unit (DReLU) activation function within a modular update framework. It claims these semantics produce results more aligned with intuitive expectations than prior approaches, satisfy established rationality postulates, and converge for acyclic QBAFs as well as broader classes of cyclic frameworks, with formal proofs provided for the convergence properties.

Significance. If the claims hold, the work would offer a meaningful advance in QBAF semantics by addressing documented issues of divergence and counterintuitive outcomes in existing methods. The modular DReLU construction provides a clean technical mechanism for handling positive and negative influences, and the extension of convergence results to cyclic cases is a clear strength, as is the explicit verification against rationality postulates.

minor comments (3)

[Abstract] Abstract: The phrase 'broader classes of cyclic frameworks' is used without a concise characterization (e.g., absence of odd-length cycles or bounded cycle length); adding one sentence would clarify the scope of the convergence theorem.
[§3] §3 (Semantics Definition): The modular update rule is presented clearly, but the text does not include a short table contrasting the DReLU outcome with at least one prior semantics (e.g., the quadratic or linear update) on the same small acyclic example; this would strengthen the 'more intuitive' claim without lengthening the section.
[§4.2] §4.2 (Convergence Proof): The proof sketch for cyclic cases is technically sound but would benefit from an explicit statement of the precise graph-theoretic condition (e.g., 'frameworks whose attack-support graph is ...') immediately before the theorem statement.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive summary and assessment of our work on Double Rectified Linear Unit-based modular semantics for QBAFs. The recommendation for minor revision is noted. No specific major comments were provided in the report, so we have no points to address individually at this stage. We will incorporate any minor changes requested by the editor or in a subsequent round if details are supplied.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation is self-contained against external postulates

full rationale

The paper introduces DReLU-based gradual semantics for QBAFs by defining an update rule from an existing activation function (double rectified linear unit) and then proves convergence properties plus satisfaction of rationality postulates drawn from the independent literature. No equation reduces a claimed prediction to a fitted parameter by construction, no load-bearing premise rests solely on self-citation, and no ansatz is smuggled in via prior author work. The central claims are evaluated against external benchmarks (established postulates and convergence classes) rather than being equivalent to the inputs by definition. This is the normal case of a non-circular technical proposal.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract provides no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; the double rectified linear unit is an existing activation function repurposed rather than newly postulated.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5434 in / 1080 out tokens · 20277 ms · 2026-05-08T18:13:53.678968+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith.Cost (Jcost = ½(x + x⁻¹) − 1) washburn_uniqueness_aczel / cost_alpha_one_eq_jcost unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

DReLU(z) = max{−1, min{1, z}} ... ρ_q(a) = (DReLU((2τ_a − 1) + δ_q(a)·γ) + 1)/2
IndisputableMonolith.Cost.CostAlphaLog CostAlphaLog (cosh-based log cost) unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

dDReLU_k(z) = (1/k) ln((1 + e^{k(z+1)})/(1 + e^{k(z−1)})) − 1
Foundation.Atomicity / general fixed-point n/a — generic Banach-style contraction, no RS content unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

the computation of ρ_q under semantics ddrl converges if γ < 2/(3d) (resp., γ < 1/d), where d = max_a |(R∪S)∩(A×{a})|

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

[1]

Argumentation-based ranking logics

[Amgoud and Ben-Naim, 2015] Leila Amgoud and Jonathan Ben-Naim. Argumentation-based ranking logics. InProc. of AAMAS, pages 1511–1519,

2015
[2]

Evaluation of arguments in weighted bipolar graphs.Int

[Amgoud and Ben-Naim, 2018] Leila Amgoud and Jonathan Ben-Naim. Evaluation of arguments in weighted bipolar graphs.Int. J. Approx. Reason., 99:39–55,

2018
[3]

Gradual semantics for weighted graphs: An unifying approach

[Amgoud and Doder, 2018] Leila Amgoud and Dragan Do- der. Gradual semantics for weighted graphs: An unifying approach. InKR, pages 613–614,

2018
[4]

Gradual semantics accounting for varied-strength at- tacks

[Amgoud and Doder, 2019] Leila Amgoud and Dragan Do- der. Gradual semantics accounting for varied-strength at- tacks. InProc. of AAMAS, pages 1270–1278,

2019
[5]

[Amgoudet al., 2008 ] Leila Amgoud, Claudette Cayrol, Marie-Christine Lagasquie-Schiex, and P. Livet. On bipo- larity in argumentation frameworks.Int. J. Intell. Syst., 23(10):1062–1093,

2008
[6]

Acceptability semantics for weighted argumentation frameworks

[Amgoudet al., 2017 ] Leila Amgoud, Jonathan Ben-Naim, Dragan Doder, and Srdjan Vesic. Acceptability semantics for weighted argumentation frameworks. InProc. of IJ- CAI, pages 56–62,

2017
[7]

Gradual semantics accounting for similarity between arguments

[Amgoudet al., 2018 ] Leila Amgoud, Elise Bonzon, J´erˆome Delobelle, Dragan Doder, S´ebastien Konieczny, and Nico- las Maudet. Gradual semantics accounting for similarity between arguments. InProc. of the Int. Conf. on Prin- ciples of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR), pages 88–97,

2018
[8]

Higher-order argu- mentation frameworks: Principles and gradual semantics

[Amgoudet al., 2024 ] Leila Amgoud, Dragan Doder, and Marie-Christine Lagasquie-Schiex. Higher-order argu- mentation frameworks: Principles and gradual semantics. InProc. of IJCAI, pages 3224–3231,

2024
[9]

Atkinson, P

[Atkinsonet al., 2017 ] K. Atkinson, P. Baroni, M. Gia- comin, A. Hunter, H. Prakken, C. Reed, G. R. Simari, M. Thimm, and S. Villata. Towards artificial argumenta- tion.Artificial Intelligence Magazine, 38(3):25–36,

2017
[10]

From fine-grained properties to broad principles for gradual argumentation: A principled spec- trum.International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 105:252–286,

[Baroniet al., 2019 ] Pietro Baroni, Antonio Rago, and Francesca Toni. From fine-grained properties to broad principles for gradual argumentation: A principled spec- trum.International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 105:252–286,

2019
[11]

Bench-Capon and P

[Bench-Capon and Dunne, 2007] T.J.M. Bench-Capon and P. E. Dunne. Argumentation in artificial intelligence.Artif. Intell., 171:619 – 641,

2007
[12]

A logic-based theory of deductive arguments.Ar- tif

[Besnard and Hunter, 2001] Philippe Besnard and Anthony Hunter. A logic-based theory of deductive arguments.Ar- tif. Intell., 128(1-2):203–235,

2001
[13]

Argument mining with fine-tuned large language models

[Cabessaet al., 2025 ] J´er´emie Cabessa, Hugo Hernault, and Umer Mushtaq. Argument mining with fine-tuned large language models. InProc. of International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 6624–6635,

2025
[14]

The development of a weighted evolving fuzzy neural network for pcb sales forecasting.Expert Sys- tems with Applications, 32(1):86–96,

[Changet al., 2007 ] Pei-Chann Chang, Yen-Wen Wang, and Chen-Hao Liu. The development of a weighted evolving fuzzy neural network for pcb sales forecasting.Expert Sys- tems with Applications, 32(1):86–96,

2007
[15]

Parametrized gradual semantics dealing with varied degrees of compensation

[Doderet al., 2023 ] Dragan Doder, Leila Amgoud, and Srd- jan Vesic. Parametrized gradual semantics dealing with varied degrees of compensation. InProc. of IJCAI, pages 3176–3183,

2023
[16]

[Dung, 1995] P. M. Dung. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games.Artif. Intell., 77:321– 358,

1995
[17]

Fazzinga, S

[Fazzingaet al., 2015 ] B. Fazzinga, S. Flesca, and F. Parisi. On the complexity of probabilistic abstract argumenta- tion frameworks.ACM Trans. Comput. Log., 16(3):22:1– 22:39,

2015
[18]

Fazzinga, S

[Fazzingaet al., 2019 ] B. Fazzinga, S. Flesca, and F. Fur- faro. Complexity of fundamental problems in probabilistic abstract argumentation: Beyond independence.Artif. In- tell., 268:1–29,

2019
[19]

Argumentative large language models for explain- able and contestable claim verification

[Freedmanet al., 2025 ] Gabriel Freedman, Adam Dejl, Deniz Gorur, Xiang Yin, Antonio Rago, and Francesca Toni. Argumentative large language models for explain- able and contestable claim verification. InProc. AAAI Int. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, pages 14930–14939,

2025
[20]

Can large language models perform relation-based argument mining? InProc

[Goruret al., 2025 ] Deniz Gorur, Antonio Rago, and Francesca Toni. Can large language models perform relation-based argument mining? InProc. of Interna- tional Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 8518–8534,

2025
[21]

Ranking-based argumentation se- mantics applied to logical argumentation

[Heynincket al., 2023 ] Jesse Heyninck, Badran Raddaoui, and Christian Straßer. Ranking-based argumentation se- mantics applied to logical argumentation. InIJCAI, pages 3268–3276,

2023
[22]

[Hunter, 2012] A. Hunter. Some foundations for probabilis- tic abstract argumentation. InProc. of COMMA, pages 117–128,

2012
[23]

[Liet al., 2011 ] H. Li, N. Oren, and T. J. Norman. Prob- abilistic argumentation frameworks. InProc. of TAFA, pages 1–16,

2011
[24]

Transformer-based argument mining for health- care applications

[Mayeret al., 2020 ] Tobias Mayer, Elena Cabrio, and Serena Villata. Transformer-based argument mining for health- care applications. InECAI 2020 - 24th European Confer- ence on Artificial Intelligence, volume 325, pages 2108–

2020
[25]

Modular semantics and characteris- tics for bipolar weighted argumentation graphs.CoRR, abs/1807.06685,

[Mossakowski and Neuhaus, 2018] Till Mossakowski and Fabian Neuhaus. Modular semantics and characteris- tics for bipolar weighted argumentation graphs.CoRR, abs/1807.06685,

work page arXiv 2018
[26]

Nouioua and V

[Nouioua and Risch, 2011] F. Nouioua and V . Risch. Argu- mentation frameworks with necessities. InProc. of SUM,

2011
[27]

[Nouioua, 2013] F. Nouioua. Afs with necessities: Further semantics and labelling characterization. InProc. of SUM, pages 120–133,

2013
[28]

A tutorial for weighted bipolar argumentation with continuous dynamical systems and the java library attractor.arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.12787,

[Potyka, 2018b] Nico Potyka. A tutorial for weighted bipolar argumentation with continuous dynamical systems and the java library attractor.arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.12787,

work page arXiv
[29]

Extending modular semantics for bipolar weighted argumentation

[Potyka, 2019] Nico Potyka. Extending modular semantics for bipolar weighted argumentation. InProce. of AAMAS, pages 1722–1730,

2019
[30]

Interpreting neural networks as quantitative argumentation frameworks

[Potyka, 2021] Nico Potyka. Interpreting neural networks as quantitative argumentation frameworks. InThirty-Fifth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI1, pages 6463–6470. AAAI Press,

2021
[31]

Attractor - A java library for gradual bipolar argumentation

[Potyka, 2022] Nico Potyka. Attractor - A java library for gradual bipolar argumentation. InProc. of COMMA, pages 369–370,

2022
[32]

Discontinuity-free deci- sion support with quantitative argumentation debates

[Ragoet al., 2016 ] Antonio Rago, Francesca Toni, Marco Aurisicchio, and Pietro Baroni. Discontinuity-free deci- sion support with quantitative argumentation debates. In Proc. of the Int. Conf. on Principles of Knowledge Repre- sentation and Reasoning (KR), pages 63–73,

2016
[33]

On Gradual Seman- tics for Assumption-Based Argumentation

[Rapbergeret al., 2025 ] Anna Rapberger, Fabrizio Russo, Antonio Rago, and Francesca Toni. On Gradual Seman- tics for Assumption-Based Argumentation. InProc. of the 22nd Int. Conf. on Principles of Knowledge Representa- tion and Reasoning (KR), pages 512–522,

2025
[34]

[Simari and Rahwan, 2009] G. R. Simari and I. Rahwan, ed- itors.Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence. Springer,

2009
[35]

Ranking-based semantics for assumption-based argumentation

[Skibaet al., 2023 ] Kenneth Skiba, Matthias Thimm, and Johannes Peter Wallner. Ranking-based semantics for assumption-based argumentation. InFCR@ KI, pages 44– 52,

2023
[36]

Villata, G

[Villataet al., 2012 ] S. Villata, G. Boella, D. M. Gabbay, and L. W. N. van der Torre. Modelling defeasible and priori- tized support in bipolar argumentation.Ann. Math. Artif. Intell., 66(1-4), 2012

2012

[1] [1]

Argumentation-based ranking logics

[Amgoud and Ben-Naim, 2015] Leila Amgoud and Jonathan Ben-Naim. Argumentation-based ranking logics. InProc. of AAMAS, pages 1511–1519,

2015

[2] [2]

Evaluation of arguments in weighted bipolar graphs.Int

[Amgoud and Ben-Naim, 2018] Leila Amgoud and Jonathan Ben-Naim. Evaluation of arguments in weighted bipolar graphs.Int. J. Approx. Reason., 99:39–55,

2018

[3] [3]

Gradual semantics for weighted graphs: An unifying approach

[Amgoud and Doder, 2018] Leila Amgoud and Dragan Do- der. Gradual semantics for weighted graphs: An unifying approach. InKR, pages 613–614,

2018

[4] [4]

Gradual semantics accounting for varied-strength at- tacks

[Amgoud and Doder, 2019] Leila Amgoud and Dragan Do- der. Gradual semantics accounting for varied-strength at- tacks. InProc. of AAMAS, pages 1270–1278,

2019

[5] [5]

[Amgoudet al., 2008 ] Leila Amgoud, Claudette Cayrol, Marie-Christine Lagasquie-Schiex, and P. Livet. On bipo- larity in argumentation frameworks.Int. J. Intell. Syst., 23(10):1062–1093,

2008

[6] [6]

Acceptability semantics for weighted argumentation frameworks

[Amgoudet al., 2017 ] Leila Amgoud, Jonathan Ben-Naim, Dragan Doder, and Srdjan Vesic. Acceptability semantics for weighted argumentation frameworks. InProc. of IJ- CAI, pages 56–62,

2017

[7] [7]

Gradual semantics accounting for similarity between arguments

[Amgoudet al., 2018 ] Leila Amgoud, Elise Bonzon, J´erˆome Delobelle, Dragan Doder, S´ebastien Konieczny, and Nico- las Maudet. Gradual semantics accounting for similarity between arguments. InProc. of the Int. Conf. on Prin- ciples of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR), pages 88–97,

2018

[8] [8]

Higher-order argu- mentation frameworks: Principles and gradual semantics

[Amgoudet al., 2024 ] Leila Amgoud, Dragan Doder, and Marie-Christine Lagasquie-Schiex. Higher-order argu- mentation frameworks: Principles and gradual semantics. InProc. of IJCAI, pages 3224–3231,

2024

[9] [9]

Atkinson, P

[Atkinsonet al., 2017 ] K. Atkinson, P. Baroni, M. Gia- comin, A. Hunter, H. Prakken, C. Reed, G. R. Simari, M. Thimm, and S. Villata. Towards artificial argumenta- tion.Artificial Intelligence Magazine, 38(3):25–36,

2017

[10] [10]

From fine-grained properties to broad principles for gradual argumentation: A principled spec- trum.International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 105:252–286,

[Baroniet al., 2019 ] Pietro Baroni, Antonio Rago, and Francesca Toni. From fine-grained properties to broad principles for gradual argumentation: A principled spec- trum.International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 105:252–286,

2019

[11] [11]

Bench-Capon and P

[Bench-Capon and Dunne, 2007] T.J.M. Bench-Capon and P. E. Dunne. Argumentation in artificial intelligence.Artif. Intell., 171:619 – 641,

2007

[12] [12]

A logic-based theory of deductive arguments.Ar- tif

[Besnard and Hunter, 2001] Philippe Besnard and Anthony Hunter. A logic-based theory of deductive arguments.Ar- tif. Intell., 128(1-2):203–235,

2001

[13] [13]

Argument mining with fine-tuned large language models

[Cabessaet al., 2025 ] J´er´emie Cabessa, Hugo Hernault, and Umer Mushtaq. Argument mining with fine-tuned large language models. InProc. of International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 6624–6635,

2025

[14] [14]

The development of a weighted evolving fuzzy neural network for pcb sales forecasting.Expert Sys- tems with Applications, 32(1):86–96,

[Changet al., 2007 ] Pei-Chann Chang, Yen-Wen Wang, and Chen-Hao Liu. The development of a weighted evolving fuzzy neural network for pcb sales forecasting.Expert Sys- tems with Applications, 32(1):86–96,

2007

[15] [15]

Parametrized gradual semantics dealing with varied degrees of compensation

[Doderet al., 2023 ] Dragan Doder, Leila Amgoud, and Srd- jan Vesic. Parametrized gradual semantics dealing with varied degrees of compensation. InProc. of IJCAI, pages 3176–3183,

2023

[16] [16]

[Dung, 1995] P. M. Dung. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games.Artif. Intell., 77:321– 358,

1995

[17] [17]

Fazzinga, S

[Fazzingaet al., 2015 ] B. Fazzinga, S. Flesca, and F. Parisi. On the complexity of probabilistic abstract argumenta- tion frameworks.ACM Trans. Comput. Log., 16(3):22:1– 22:39,

2015

[18] [18]

Fazzinga, S

[Fazzingaet al., 2019 ] B. Fazzinga, S. Flesca, and F. Fur- faro. Complexity of fundamental problems in probabilistic abstract argumentation: Beyond independence.Artif. In- tell., 268:1–29,

2019

[19] [19]

Argumentative large language models for explain- able and contestable claim verification

[Freedmanet al., 2025 ] Gabriel Freedman, Adam Dejl, Deniz Gorur, Xiang Yin, Antonio Rago, and Francesca Toni. Argumentative large language models for explain- able and contestable claim verification. InProc. AAAI Int. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, pages 14930–14939,

2025

[20] [20]

Can large language models perform relation-based argument mining? InProc

[Goruret al., 2025 ] Deniz Gorur, Antonio Rago, and Francesca Toni. Can large language models perform relation-based argument mining? InProc. of Interna- tional Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 8518–8534,

2025

[21] [21]

Ranking-based argumentation se- mantics applied to logical argumentation

[Heynincket al., 2023 ] Jesse Heyninck, Badran Raddaoui, and Christian Straßer. Ranking-based argumentation se- mantics applied to logical argumentation. InIJCAI, pages 3268–3276,

2023

[22] [22]

[Hunter, 2012] A. Hunter. Some foundations for probabilis- tic abstract argumentation. InProc. of COMMA, pages 117–128,

2012

[23] [23]

[Liet al., 2011 ] H. Li, N. Oren, and T. J. Norman. Prob- abilistic argumentation frameworks. InProc. of TAFA, pages 1–16,

2011

[24] [24]

Transformer-based argument mining for health- care applications

[Mayeret al., 2020 ] Tobias Mayer, Elena Cabrio, and Serena Villata. Transformer-based argument mining for health- care applications. InECAI 2020 - 24th European Confer- ence on Artificial Intelligence, volume 325, pages 2108–

2020

[25] [25]

Modular semantics and characteris- tics for bipolar weighted argumentation graphs.CoRR, abs/1807.06685,

[Mossakowski and Neuhaus, 2018] Till Mossakowski and Fabian Neuhaus. Modular semantics and characteris- tics for bipolar weighted argumentation graphs.CoRR, abs/1807.06685,

work page arXiv 2018

[26] [26]

Nouioua and V

[Nouioua and Risch, 2011] F. Nouioua and V . Risch. Argu- mentation frameworks with necessities. InProc. of SUM,

2011

[27] [27]

[Nouioua, 2013] F. Nouioua. Afs with necessities: Further semantics and labelling characterization. InProc. of SUM, pages 120–133,

2013

[28] [28]

A tutorial for weighted bipolar argumentation with continuous dynamical systems and the java library attractor.arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.12787,

[Potyka, 2018b] Nico Potyka. A tutorial for weighted bipolar argumentation with continuous dynamical systems and the java library attractor.arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.12787,

work page arXiv

[29] [29]

Extending modular semantics for bipolar weighted argumentation

[Potyka, 2019] Nico Potyka. Extending modular semantics for bipolar weighted argumentation. InProce. of AAMAS, pages 1722–1730,

2019

[30] [30]

Interpreting neural networks as quantitative argumentation frameworks

[Potyka, 2021] Nico Potyka. Interpreting neural networks as quantitative argumentation frameworks. InThirty-Fifth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI1, pages 6463–6470. AAAI Press,

2021

[31] [31]

Attractor - A java library for gradual bipolar argumentation

[Potyka, 2022] Nico Potyka. Attractor - A java library for gradual bipolar argumentation. InProc. of COMMA, pages 369–370,

2022

[32] [32]

Discontinuity-free deci- sion support with quantitative argumentation debates

[Ragoet al., 2016 ] Antonio Rago, Francesca Toni, Marco Aurisicchio, and Pietro Baroni. Discontinuity-free deci- sion support with quantitative argumentation debates. In Proc. of the Int. Conf. on Principles of Knowledge Repre- sentation and Reasoning (KR), pages 63–73,

2016

[33] [33]

On Gradual Seman- tics for Assumption-Based Argumentation

[Rapbergeret al., 2025 ] Anna Rapberger, Fabrizio Russo, Antonio Rago, and Francesca Toni. On Gradual Seman- tics for Assumption-Based Argumentation. InProc. of the 22nd Int. Conf. on Principles of Knowledge Representa- tion and Reasoning (KR), pages 512–522,

2025

[34] [34]

[Simari and Rahwan, 2009] G. R. Simari and I. Rahwan, ed- itors.Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence. Springer,

2009

[35] [35]

Ranking-based semantics for assumption-based argumentation

[Skibaet al., 2023 ] Kenneth Skiba, Matthias Thimm, and Johannes Peter Wallner. Ranking-based semantics for assumption-based argumentation. InFCR@ KI, pages 44– 52,

2023

[36] [36]

Villata, G

[Villataet al., 2012 ] S. Villata, G. Boella, D. M. Gabbay, and L. W. N. van der Torre. Modelling defeasible and priori- tized support in bipolar argumentation.Ann. Math. Artif. Intell., 66(1-4), 2012

2012