Explanations of Non-monotonic Inference in Admissibility-Based Abstract Argumentation

In this paper, we introduce a formal framework for explaining change of inference in abstract argumentation, in particular in the context of iteratively drawing inferences from a sequence of normal expansions, with a focus on admissible set-based semantics. We then conduct a formal analysis, showing that given an initial argumentation framework and an extension that has been inferred from it, we can guarantee the existence of explanation arguments for the violation of monotony when inferring an extension from a normal expansion of the initial argumentation framework