792 research outputs found
Extension-based Semantics of Abstract Dialectical Frameworks
One of the most prominent tools for abstract argumentation is the Dung's
framework, AF for short. It is accompanied by a variety of semantics including
grounded, complete, preferred and stable. Although powerful, AFs have their
shortcomings, which led to development of numerous enrichments. Among the most
general ones are the abstract dialectical frameworks, also known as the ADFs.
They make use of the so-called acceptance conditions to represent arbitrary
relations. This level of abstraction brings not only new challenges, but also
requires addressing existing problems in the field. One of the most
controversial issues, recognized not only in argumentation, concerns the
support cycles. In this paper we introduce a new method to ensure acyclicity of
the chosen arguments and present a family of extension-based semantics built on
it. We also continue our research on the semantics that permit cycles and fill
in the gaps from the previous works. Moreover, we provide ADF versions of the
properties known from the Dung setting. Finally, we also introduce a
classification of the developed sub-semantics and relate them to the existing
labeling-based approaches.Comment: To appear in the Proceedings of the 15th International Workshop on
Non-Monotonic Reasoning (NMR 2014
A QBF-based Formalization of Abstract Argumentation Semantics
Supported by the National Research Fund, Luxembourg (LAAMI project) and by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC, UK), grant ref. EP/J012084/1 (SAsSY project).Peer reviewedPostprin
Strong Admissibility for Abstract Dialectical Frameworks
Abstract dialectical frameworks (ADFs) have been introduced as a formalism
for modeling and evaluating argumentation allowing general logical satisfaction
conditions. Different criteria used to settle the acceptance of arguments are
called semantics. Semantics of ADFs have so far mainly been defined based on
the concept of admissibility. However, the notion of strongly admissible
semantics studied for abstract argumentation frameworks has not yet been
introduced for ADFs. In the current work we present the concept of strong
admissibility of interpretations for ADFs. Further, we show that strongly
admissible interpretations of ADFs form a lattice with the grounded
interpretation as top element.Comment: 9 pages, 3 Figures, SAC '21 conference: The 36th ACM/SIGAPP Symposium
on Applied Computin
Argumentation semantics as formal discussion
In the current chapter, we interpret a number of mainstream
argumentation semantics by means of structured discussion. The
idea is that an argument is justified according to a particular argumentation
semantics iff it is possible to win a discussion of a particular type.
Hence, different argumentation semantics correspond to different types of
discussion. Our aim is to provide an overview of what these discussions
look like, and their formal correspondence to argumentation semantics
- …