On Undisputed Sets in Abstract Argumentation
نویسندگان
چکیده
We introduce the notion of an undisputed set for abstract argumentation frameworks, which is a conflict-free arguments, such that its reduct contains no non-empty admissible set. show sets, and stronger strongly provide meaningful approach to weaken admissibility deal with problem attacks from self-attacking in similar manner as recently introduced weak admissibility. investigate properties our new semantical notions certain relationships classical semantics, particular sets are generalisation preferred extensions stable extensions. also computational complexity standard reasoning tasks these they lie on second third level polynomial hierarchy, respectively.
منابع مشابه
Initial Sets in Abstract Argumentation Frameworks
Dung’s abstract argumentation provides us with a general framework to deal with argumentation, non-monotonic reasoning and logic programming. For the extensionbased semantics, one of the basic principles is Imaximality which is in particular related with the notion of skeptical justification. Another one is directionality which can be employed for the study of dynamics of argumentation. In this...
متن کاملConflicts in Abstract Argumentation
In abstract argumentation traditionally directed attacks might also be called conflicts if the direction of the attack is not of importance. Recent publications emphasize that argumentation graphs when combined with some semantics feature semantic conflicts that might not coincide with syntactic conflicts defined by attacks. We elaborate on characteristics of various semantics and investigate p...
متن کاملSupport in Abstract Argumentation
In this paper, we consider two drawbacks of Cayrol and LagasqueSchiex’s meta-argumentation theory to model bipolar argumentation frameworks. We consider first the “lost of admissibility” in Dung’s sense and second, the definition of notions of attack in the context of a support relation. We show how to prevent these drawbacks by introducing support meta-arguments. Like the model of Cayrol and L...
متن کاملOn Computing Explanations in Abstract Argumentation
Argumentation can be viewed as a process of generating explanations. We propose a new argumentation semantics, related admissibility, for closely capturing explanations in Abstract Argumentation, and distinguish between compact and verbose explanations. We show that dispute forests, composed of dispute trees, can be used to correctly compute these explanations.
متن کاملOn Learning Attacks in Probabilistic Abstract Argumentation
Probabilistic argumentation combines the quantitative uncertainty accounted by probability theory with the qualitative uncertainty captured by argumentation. In this paper, we investigate the problem of learning the structure of an argumentative graph to account for (a distribution of) labellings of a set of arguments. We consider a general abstract framework, where the structure of arguments i...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
ژورنال
عنوان ژورنال: Proceedings of the ... AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence
سال: 2023
ISSN: ['2159-5399', '2374-3468']
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v37i5.25805