Analyzing the Equivalence Zoo in Abstract Argumentation
نویسندگان
چکیده
Notions of equivalence which are stronger than standard equivalence in the sense that they also take potential modifications of the available information into account have received considerable interest in nonmonotonic reasoning. In this paper we focus on equivalence notions in argumentation. More specifically, we establish a number of new results about the relationships among various equivalence notions for Dung argumentation frameworks which are located between strong equivalence [1] and standard equivalence. We provide the complete picture for this variety of equivalence relations (which we call the equivalence zoo) for the most important semantics.
منابع مشابه
The Equivalence Zoo for Dung-style Semantics
Notions of equivalence which are stronger than standard equivalence in the sense that they also take potential modifications of the available information into account have received considerable interest in nonmonotonic reasoning. In this paper we focus on equivalence notions in argumentation. More specifically, we establish a number of new results about the relationships among various equivalen...
متن کاملCharacterizing Strong Equivalence for Argumentation Frameworks
Since argumentation is an inherently dynamic process, it is of great importance to understand the effect of incorporating new information into given argumentation frameworks. In this work, we address this issue by analyzing equivalence between argumentation frameworks under the assumption that the frameworks in question are incomplete, i.e. further information might be added later to both frame...
متن کاملA General Notion of Equivalence for Abstract Argumentation
We introduce a parametrized equivalence notion for abstract argumentation that subsumes standard and strong equivalence as corner cases. Under this notion, two argumentation frameworks are equivalent if they deliver the same extensions under any addition of arguments and attacks that do not affect a given set of core arguments. As we will see, this notion of equivalence nicely captures the conc...
متن کاملOn the Difference between Assumption-based Argumentation and Abstract Argumentation
In the current paper, we re-examine the connection between abstract argumentation and assumption-based argumentation. These two formalisms are often claimed to be equivalent in the sense that (a) evaluating an assumption based argumentation framework directly with the dedicated semantics, and (b) first constructing the corresponding abstract argumentation framework and then applying the corresp...
متن کاملThe role of self-attacking arguments in characterizations of equivalence notions
A special case of loops in argumentation are self-attacking arguments. While their role with respect to the ontological nature of argumentation is controversially discussed, their presence (or absence) in the abstract setting of Dung-style argumentation frameworks seems to be less crucial for semantics or fundamental properties. There are, however, a few exceptions where self-attacking argument...
متن کامل