A General Notion of Equivalence for Abstract Argumentation
نویسندگان
چکیده
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 concept of local simplifications. We provide exact characterizations and complexity results for deciding our new notion of equivalence.
منابع مشابه
Defense semantics of argumentation: encoding reasons for accepting arguments
In this paper we show how the defense relation among abstract arguments can be used to encode the reasons for accepting arguments. After introducing a novel notion of defenses and defense graphs, we propose a defense semantics together with a new notion of defense equivalence of argument graphs, and compare defense equivalence with standard equivalence and strong equivalence, respectively. Then...
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 کاملThe cf2 argumentation semantics revisited
Abstract argumentation frameworks nowadays provide the most popular formalization of argumentation on a conceptual level.argumentation frameworks nowadays provide the most popular formalization of argumentation on a conceptual level. Numerous semantics for this paradigm have been proposed, whereby the cf2 semantics has shown to solve particular problems concerned with odd-length cycles in such ...
متن کاملContext-free and Context-sensitive Kernels: Update and Deletion Equivalence in abstract Argumentation
Notions of equivalence which guarantee intersubstitutability w.r.t. further modifications have received considerable interest in nonmonotonic reasoning. This paper is within the context of abstract argumentation and we focus on the most general form of a dynamic scenarios, so-called updates as well as certain sub-classes, namely local, normal and arbitrary deletions. We provide characterization...
متن کاملWhat Does it Take to Enforce an Argument? Minimal Change in abstract Argumentation
Argumentation is a dynamic process. The enforcing problem in argumentation, i.e. the question whether it is possible to modify a given argumentation framework (AF) in such a way that a desired set of arguments becomes an extension or a subset of an extension, was first studied in [3] and positively answered under certain conditions. In this paper, we take up this research and study the more gen...
متن کامل