Formal Bipolar Weighted Semantics for Generalized Argumentation Frameworks

Argumentation is the inferential strategy aimed at coping with inconsistent knowledge within a logic theory. Abstract argumentation is based on a graph model where nodes are uninterpreted claims and arcs denote relationships between pairs of claims. Different frameworks provide different expressive power and different strategies (‘semantics’) to decide which arguments are justified. The Generalized Argumentation Framework was proposed as a unifying model that can simulate major pre-existing frameworks in the literature and combine them into a single, seamless model. It also provides additional power. This paper discusses its formal properties and proposes and investigates different evaluation strategies and semantics that can leverage its specific features and full power.