Abstract Argumentation with Subargument Relations

2026-01-17

AI Summary

This work proposes a novel extension of abstract argumentation frameworks by formally integrating subargument relations as a primitive alongside attack relations. Traditional frameworks rely solely on attacks to determine argument acceptability, thereby failing to capture the internal dependency structures inherent in structured arguments. The paper is the first to model subargument relations explicitly, formalizing their asymmetric and compositional nature. By combining formal logic with semantic analysis, it systematically investigates the interplay between subargument and attack relations, constructs a unified framework that incorporates both, and clarifies the role of subargument relations in acceptability reasoning. The study further demonstrates how this integration preserves and influences core semantic properties—such as conflict-freeness and admissibility—thereby addressing limitations of existing support-based models.

Technology Category

• Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Argumentation
• Natural Language Processing: Discourse, Pragmatics & Argument Mining
• Multiagent Systems: Agreement, Argumentation & Negotiation

Application Category

• Graph Algorithms and Modeling for the Web: Representation, reconstruction, and subgraph or motif discovery in Web-related graphs
• Search and Retrieval-Augmented AI: Web query analysis, representation and understanding
• Semantics and Knowledge: Methods to enhance, augment, integrate or synergize semantic models such as knowledge graphs and LLMs

Abstract

Dung's abstract argumentation framework characterises argument acceptability solely via an attack relation, deliberately abstracting from the internal structure of arguments. While this level of abstraction has enabled a rich body of results, it limits the ability to represent structural dependencies that are central in many structured argumentation formalisms, in particular subargument relations. Existing extensions, including bipolar argumentation frameworks, introduce support relations, but these do not capture the asymmetric and constitutive nature of subarguments or their interaction with attacks. In this paper, we study abstract argumentation frameworks enriched with an explicit subargument relation, treated alongside attack as a basic relation. We analyse how subargument relations interact with attacks and examine their impact on fundamental semantic properties. This framework provides a principled abstraction of structural information and clarifies the role of subarguments in abstract acceptability reasoning.

Problem

• abstract argumentation
• subargument relation
• attack relation
• structured argumentation
• argument acceptability

Innovation

• abstract argumentation
• subargument relation
• attack relation
• structured argumentation
• argumentation semantics