Characterizing Realizability in Abstract Argumentation
نویسندگان
چکیده
Realizability for knowledge representation formalisms studies the following question: Given a semantics and a set of interpretations, is there a knowledge base whose semantics coincides exactly with the given interpretation set? We introduce a general framework for analyzing realizability in abstract dialectical frameworks (ADFs) and various of its subclasses. In particular, the framework applies to Dung argumentation frameworks, SETAFs by Nielsen and Parsons, and bipolar ADFs. We present a uniform characterization method for the admissible, complete, preferred and model/stable semantics. We employ this method to devise an algorithm that decides realizability for the mentioned formalisms and semantics; moreover the algorithm allows for constructing a desired knowledge base whenever one exists. The algorithm is built in a modular way and thus easily extensible to new formalisms and semantics. We have also implemented our approach in answer set programming, and used the implementation to obtain several novel results on the relative expressiveness of the abovementioned formalisms.
منابع مشابه
Synthesizing Argumentation Frameworks from Examples
Argumentation is nowadays a core topic in AI research. Understanding computational and representational aspects of abstract argumentation frameworks (AFs) is a central topic in the study of argumentation. The study of realizability of AFs aims at understanding the expressive power of AFs under different semantics. We propose and study the AF synthesis problem as a natural extension of realizabi...
متن کاملA Uniform Account of Realizability in Abstract Argumentation
We introduce a general framework for analyzing realizability in abstract dialectical frameworks (ADFs) and various of its subclasses. In particular, the framework applies to Dung argumentation frameworks, SETAFs by Nielsen and Parsons, and bipolar ADFs. We present a uniform characterization method for the admissible, complete, preferred and model/stable semantics. We employ this method to devis...
متن کاملAn extension-based approach to belief revision in abstract argumentation
Argumentation is an inherently dynamic process. Consequently, recent years have witnessed tremendous research efforts towards an understanding of how the seminal AGM theory of belief change can be applied to argumentation, in particular for Dung’s abstract argumentation frameworks (AFs). However, none of the attempts has yet succeeded in handling the natural situation where the revision of an A...
متن کاملAGM Meets Abstract Argumentation: Expansion and Revision for Dung Frameworks
In this paper we combine two of the most important areas of knowledge representation, namely belief revision and (abstract) argumentation. More precisely, we show how AGM-style expansion and revision operators can be defined for Dung’s abstract argumentation frameworks (AFs). Our approach is based on a reformulation of the original AGM postulates for revision in terms of monotonic consequence r...
متن کاملThe Advice Taker 2.0
Starting from McCarthy’s seminal proposal for the construction of an advice-taking machine, we show how tools from abstract argumentation and computational learning can help disambiguate and formalize that goal. Our focus is on establishing provable guarantees on the realizability of the advice taker, and on implementing an actual prototype system.
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
عنوان ژورنال:
- CoRR
دوره abs/1603.09545 شماره
صفحات -
تاریخ انتشار 2016