---
res:
  bibo_abstract:
  - <jats:p>Argumentation is a well-established formalism for nonmonotonic reasoning,
    with popular frameworks being Dung’s abstract argumentation (AFs) or logic-based
    argumentation (Besnard-Hunter’s framework). Structurally, a set of formulas forms
    support for a claim if it is consistent, subset-minimal, and implies the claim.
    Then, an argument comprises support and a claim. We observe that the computational
    task (ARG) of asking for support of a claim in a knowledge base is “brave”, since
    many claims with a single support are accepted. As a result, ARG falls short when
    it comes to the question of confidence in a claim, or claim strength. In this
    paper, we propose a concept for measuring the (acceptance) strength of claims,
    based on counting supports for a claim. Further, we settle classical and structural
    complexity of counting arguments favoring a given claim in propositional knowledge
    bases (KBs). We introduce quantitative reasoning to measure the strength of claims
    in a KB and to determine the relevance strength of a formula for a claim.</jats:p>@eng
  bibo_authorlist:
  - foaf_Person:
      foaf_givenName: Markus
      foaf_name: Hecher, Markus
      foaf_surname: Hecher
  - foaf_Person:
      foaf_givenName: Yasir
      foaf_name: Mahmood, Yasir
      foaf_surname: Mahmood
      foaf_workInfoHomepage: http://www.librecat.org/personId=99353
  - foaf_Person:
      foaf_givenName: Arne
      foaf_name: Meier, Arne
      foaf_surname: Meier
  - foaf_Person:
      foaf_givenName: Johannes
      foaf_name: Schmidt, Johannes
      foaf_surname: Schmidt
  bibo_doi: 10.24963/ijcai.2024/377
  dct_date: 2024^xs_gYear
  dct_language: eng
  dct_publisher: International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence Organization@
  dct_title: Quantitative Claim-Centric Reasoning in Logic-Based Argumentation@
...