Comparing Two Unique Extension Semantics for Formal Argumentation: Ideal and Eager
نویسنده
چکیده
In formal argumentation, grounded semantics is well known for yielding exactly one unique extension. Since grounded semantics has a very sceptical nature, one can ask the question whether it is possible to define a unique extension semantics that is more credulous. Recent work of Dung, Mancarella and Toni proposes what they call ideal semantics, which is a unique extension semantics that is more credulous than grounded semantics. In the current paper, we define a unique extension semantics called eager semantics that is even more credulous than ideal semantics. We then examine how this semantics relates to the existing argumentation semantics proposed by Dung and others.
منابع مشابه
Intertranslatability of Labeling-Based Argumentation Semantics
Abstract Argumentation is a simple yet powerful formalism for modeling the human reasoning and argumentation process. Various semantics have been suggested with a view of arriving at coherent outcomes of the argumentation process. Two categories of semantics are well-known, extension-based semantics and labeling-based semantics. Translations between semantics are an important area of interest t...
متن کاملOn principle-based evaluation of extension-based argumentation semantics
The increasing variety of semantics proposed in the context of Dung’s theory of argumentation makes more and more inadequate the example-based approach commonly adopted for evaluating and comparing different semantics. To fill this gap, this paper provides two main contributions. First, a set of general criteria for semantics evaluation is introduced by proposing a formal counterpart to several...
متن کاملA General QBF-based Formalization of abstract Argumentation Theory
We introduce a unified logical approach, based on signed theories and Quantified Boolean Formulas (QBFs), that can serve as a basis for representing and reasoning with various argumentation-based decision problems. By this, we are able to represent, in a uniform and simple way, a wide range of extension-based semantics for argumentation theory, including complete, grounded, preferred, semistabl...
متن کاملThe Computational Complexity of Ideal Semantics I: Abstract Argumentation Frameworks
We analyse the computational complexity of the recently proposed ideal semantics within abstract argumentation frameworks. It is shown that while typically less tractable than credulous admissibility semantics, the natural decision problems arising with this extension-based model can, perhaps surprisingly, be decided more efficiently than sceptical admissibility semantics. In particular the tas...
متن کاملA Gentle Introduction to Argumentation Semantics
This document presents an overview of some of the standard semantics for formal argumentation, including Dung’s notions of grounded, preferred, complete and stable semantics, as well as newer notions like Caminada’s semi-stable semantics and Dung, Mancarella and Toni’s ideal semantics. These semantics will be treated both in their original extension-based form, as well as in the form of argumen...
متن کامل