On the Functional Completeness of Argumentation Semantics
نویسندگان
چکیده
Abstract argumentation frameworks (AFs) are one of the central formalisms in AI; equipped with a wide range of semantics, they have proven useful in several application domains. We contribute to the systematic analysis of semantics for AFs by connecting two recent lines of research – the work on input/output frameworks and the study of the expressiveness of semantics. We do so by considering the following question: given a function describing an input/output behaviour by mapping extensions (resp. labellings) to sets of extensions (resp. labellings), is there an AF with designated input and output arguments realizing this function under a given semantics? For the major semantics we give exact characterizations of the functions which are realizable in this manner.
منابع مشابه
Complexity of semi-stable and stage semantics in argumentation frameworks
In this work, we answer two questions about the complexity of semi-stable semantics for abstract argumentation frameworks: we show Π2 -completeness for the problem of deciding whether an argument is skeptically accepted, and respectively, ΣP2 completeness for the problem of deciding whether an argument is credulously accepted under the semi-stable semantics. Furthermore, we extend these complex...
متن کاملA Sound and Complete Dialectical Proof Procedure for Sceptical Preferred Argumentation
We present a dialectical proof procedure for computing skeptical preferred semantics in argumentation frameworks. The proof procedure is based on the dispute derivation introduced for assumption-based framework. We prove the soundness of the procedure for any argumentation frameworks and the completeness for a general class of finitary argumentation frameworks containing the class of finite arg...
متن کاملCredulous and Skeptical Argument Games for Complete Semantics in Conflict Resolution based Argumentation
Argumentation is one of the most popular approaches of defining a non-monotonic formalism and several argumentation based semantics were proposed for defeasible logic programs. Recently, a new approach based on notions of conflict resolutions was proposed, however with declarative semantics only. This paper gives a more procedural counterpart by developing skeptical and credulous argument games...
متن کاملTowards a Common Framework for Dialectical Proof Procedures in Abstract Argumentation
We present a common framework for dialectical proof procedures for computing credulous, grounded, ideal and sceptical preferred semantics of abstract argumentation. The framework is based on the notions of dispute derivation and base derivation. Dispute derivation is a dialectical notion first introduced for computing credulous semantics in assumption-based argumentation, and adapted here for c...
متن کاملSynthesizing 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 کامل