Argumentation Frameworks Features: an Initial Study
نویسندگان
چکیده
Semantics extensions are the outcome of the argumentation reasoning process: enumerating them is generally an intractable problem. For preferred semantics two efficient algorithms have been recently proposed, PrefSAT and SCC-P, with significant runtime variations. This preliminary work aims at investigating the reasons (argumentation framework features) for such variations. Remarkably, we observed that few features have a strong impact, and those exploited by the most performing algorithm are not the most relevant.
منابع مشابه
Some Theoretical Results on the Relationship Between Argumentation and Coherence Theory
This work provides initial results on the relationship between argumentation and Paul Thagard’s coherence theory. We study the relationship, via appropriate transformations, between different types of coherent graphs (according to the values in the arcs) and different argumentation frameworks such as Dung’s abstract argumentation framework, weighted argument systems or preference-based argument...
متن کاملVerification in Incomplete Argumentation Frameworks
We tackle the problem of expressing incomplete knowledge in abstract argumentation frameworks originally introduced by Dung [15]. In applications, incomplete argumentation frameworks may arise as intermediate states in an elicitation process, or when merging different beliefs about an argumentation framework’s state, or in cases where complete information cannot be obtained. We consider two spe...
متن کاملSome design guidelines for practical argumentation systems
We give some design guidelines for argumentation systems. These guidelines are meant to indicate essential features of argumentation when used to support “practical reasoning”. We express the guidelines in terms of postulates. We use a notion of redundancy to provide a formal counterpart of these postulates. We study the satisfaction of these postulates in two existing argumentation frameworks:...
متن کاملInitial Sets in Abstract Argumentation Frameworks
Dung’s abstract argumentation provides us with a general framework to deal with argumentation, non-monotonic reasoning and logic programming. For the extensionbased semantics, one of the basic principles is Imaximality which is in particular related with the notion of skeptical justification. Another one is directionality which can be employed for the study of dynamics of argumentation. In this...
متن کاملUncontested Semantics for Value-Based Argumentation
We introduce an extension-based semantics for value-based argumentation frameworks (vafs) that provides a counterpart to the recently proposed ideal semantics in standard – i.e. value–free – argumentation frameworks. A significant motivation for this so-called “uncontested semantics” is as a mechanism with which to refine the nature of objective acceptance: thus the set of uncontested arguments...
متن کامل