The phrase "argument system" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used in contexts related to logic, computer science, or discussions about reasoning frameworks.
Example: "The argument system we developed allows for more efficient processing of logical statements."
Alternatives: "reasoning framework" or "debate structure".
In deriving these latter results we introduce various concepts of "simulating" a general argument system by a restricted class so allowing any argument system to be translated to one which has both bounded degree and is planar.
Our main result shows that the related decision problem is Π2(p -complete and is obtained solely via the grap -completec representandon of an argument system, thus isdependent obtainedpecific logic underpinning the reasolely theory.
Our principal concern may, informally, be phrased as follows: given a specific argument system, H, and argument x within H, what can be stated concerning the number of moves a dispute might take for one of its protagonists to accept that x has some defence respectively cannot be defended?
The generality and usefulness of the proposed approach are demonstrated by illustrating its ability to capture as instances and enhance two structured argumentation formalisms from the literature, namely Vreeswijk's abstract argument systems and Modgil and Prakken's ASPIC+.
We then present the framework of weighted argument systems.
The key advantage of this approach is that it permits a much finer grained level of analysis of argument systems than unweighted systems, and gives useful solutions when conventional (unweighted) argument systems have none.
One benefit of so-called 'coherent' argument systems being that the preferred extensions coincide with stable extensions.
Argument Systems provide a rich abstraction within which divers concepts of reasoning, acceptability and defeasibility of arguments, etc., may be studied using a unified framework.
We begin by reviewing Dung's abstract argument systems, and motivating weights on attacks (as opposed to the alternative possibility, which is to attach weights to arguments).
We investigate solutions for weighted argument systems and the complexity of computing such solutions, focussing in particular on weighted variations of grounded extensions.
In this note we consider complexity-theoretic issues regarding deciding if finitely presented argument systems modelled as directed graphs are coherent.
