Splitting an Argumentation Framework
نویسنده
چکیده
Splitting results in non-mononotonic formalisms have a long tradition. On the one hand, these results can be used to improve existing computational procedures, and on the other hand they yield deeper theoretical insights into how a non-monotonic approach works. In the 90‘s Lifschitz and Turner [1, 2] proved splitting results for logic programs and default theory. In this paper we establish similar results for Dung style argumentation frameworks (AFs) under the most important semantics, namely stable, preferred, complete and grounded semantics. Furthermore we show how to use these results in dynamical argumentation.
منابع مشابه
Splitting Abstract Dialectical Frameworks
Among the abundance of generalizations of abstract argumentation frameworks, the formalism of abstract dialectical frameworks (ADFs) proved to be powerful in modelling various argumentation problems. Implementations of reasoning tasks that come within ADFs struggle with their high computational complexity. Thus methods simplifying the evaluation process are required. One such method is splittin...
متن کاملSplitting Argumentation Frameworks: An Empirical Evaluation
In a recent paper Baumann [1] has shown that splitting results, similar to those known for logic programs under answer set semantics and default logic, can also be obtained for Dung argumentation frameworks (AFs). Under certain conditions a given AF A can be split into subparts A1 and A2 such that extensions of A can be computed by (1) computing an extension E1 of A1, (2) modifying A2 based on ...
متن کاملParameterized Splitting: A Simple Modification-Based Approach
In an important and much cited paper Vladimir Lifschitz and Hudson Turner have shown how, under certain conditions, logic programs under answer set semantics can be split into two disjoint parts, a “bottom” part and a “top” part. The bottom part can be evaluated independently of the top part. Results of the evaluation, i.e., answer sets of the bottom part, are then used to simplify the top part...
متن کاملAn Efficient Argumentation Framework for Negotiating Autonomous Agents
Argumentation is important for agent negotiation. In this paper, we develop an efficient framework for multi-agent argumentation. We identify aspects of classical argumentation theory that are suitable and useful for artificial agents and develop an argumentation framework around them. In the framework, we distinguish cooperation and argumentation and introduce skeptical and credulous agents. W...
متن کاملAn Argumentation System with Indirect Attacks
We discuss argumentation frameworks with indirect attacks, such as why-questions and supports. A whyquestion is regarded as a kind of attack relation, and a support is an answer to an un-presented why-question. Based on this idea, we construct an argumentation framework with why-questions from a pair of knowledge bases, as an instantiation of Dung’s abstract argumentation framework, and show th...
متن کامل