On the study of acceptability in weighted argumentation frameworks through four-state labelling semantics

Computational Argumentation provides tools for both modelling and reasoning with controversial information. Abstract Argumentation Frameworks represent the building blocks in this field and allow one to model the relationships between arguments with the ultimate goal of establishing their acceptability. Arguments can be evaluated through sets of criteria, called semantics, which distinguish among various justification states. For example, an argument may be accepted, rejected, ignored or even marked as undecided. This paper considers Weighted Argumentation Frameworks and proposes a novel labelling semantics that differentiates four states and generalizes existing approaches.