Relevance in Structured Argumentation
  We study properties related to relevance in non-monotonic consequence
relations obtained by systems of structured argumentation. Relevance desiderata
concern the robustness of a consequence relation under the addition of
irrelevant information. For an account of what (ir)relevance amounts to we use
syntactic and semantic considerations. Syntactic criteria have been proposed in
the domain of relevance logic and were recently used in argumentation theory
under the names of non-interference and crash-resistance. The basic idea is
that the conclusions of a given argumentative theory should be robust under
adding information that shares no propositional variables with the original
database. Some semantic relevance criteria are known from non-monotonic logic.
For instance, cautious monotony states that if we obtain certain conclusions
from an argumentation theory, we may expect to still obtain the same
conclusions if we add some of them to the given database. In this paper we
investigate properties of structured argumentation systems that warrant
relevance desiderata.
