Two forms of minimality in ASPIC+
This work addresses a theoretical issue in formal argumentation for researchers, but it is incremental as it clarifies existing concepts without introducing new methods or broad applications.
The paper tackles the problem of defining minimality in structured argumentation systems, specifically comparing two forms of minimality in ASPIC+ and showing how one type can be recovered if desired.
Many systems of structured argumentation explicitly require that the facts and rules that make up the argument for a conclusion be the minimal set required to derive the conclusion. ASPIC+ does not place such a requirement on arguments, instead requiring that every rule and fact that are part of an argument be used in its construction. Thus ASPIC+ arguments are minimal in the sense that removing any element of the argument would lead to a structure that is not an argument. In this brief note we discuss these two types of minimality and show how the first kind of minimality can, if desired, be recovered in ASPIC+.