Postulates for logic-based argumentation systems

Logic-based argumentation systems are developed for reasoning with inconsistent information. Starting from a knowledge base encoded in a logical language, they define arguments and attacks between them using the consequence operator asso-ciated with the language. Finally, a semantics is used for evaluating the arguments. In this paper, we focus on systems that are based on deductive logics and that use Dung’s semantics. We investigate rationality postulates that such systems should satisfy. We define five intuitive postulates: consistency and closure under the con-sequence operator of the underlying logic of the set of conclusions of arguments of each extension, closure under sub-arguments and exhaustiveness of the extensions, and a free precedence postulate ensuring that the free formulas of the knowledge base (i.e., the ones that are not involved in inconsistency) are conclusions of argu-ments in every extension. We study the links between the postulates and explore conditions under which they are guaranteed or violated