This is a survey of some recent results relating Dung-style semantics for different types of
logical argumentation frameworks and several forms of reasoning with maximally consistent …

Abstract Reasoning with probabilistic information has recently attracted considerable
attention in argumentation, and formalisms of Probabilistic Abstract Argumentation (PAA) …

The theory of argumentation pervades several fields of knowledge, and it has gained
significant space in multiagent systems because it provides a way for modeling reasoning …

Default logic and formal argumentation are paradigmatic methods in the study of
nonmonotonic inference. Defeasible information often comes in different strengths stemming …

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 …

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

We study properties related to relevance in non-monotonic consequence relations obtained
by systems of structured argumentation. Relevance desiderata concern the robustness of 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 …

In this paper, we consider assumption-based argumentation frameworks that are based on
contrapositive logics and partially-ordered preference functions. It is shown that these …