Necessary and Sufficient Explanations in Abstract Argumentation

TL;DR

This paper explores the concepts of necessary and sufficient explanations in formal argumentation, analyzing what arguments are essential or adequate for the acceptance or rejection of arguments under various semantics.

Contribution

It introduces a framework for deriving explanations in argumentation and investigates the roles of necessity and sufficiency in argument acceptance.

Findings

Identifies criteria for necessary explanations in argumentation.

Defines sufficient explanations for argument acceptance.

Provides insights into explanation structures under different semantics.

Abstract

In this paper, we discuss necessary and sufficient explanations for formal argumentation - the question whether and why a certain argument can be accepted (or not) under various extension-based semantics. Given a framework with which explanations for argumentation-based conclusions can be derived, we study necessity and sufficiency: what (sets of) arguments are necessary or sufficient for the (non-)acceptance of an argument?