Resolution-Based Grounded Semantics Revisited
نویسندگان
چکیده
The resolution-based grounded semantics constitutes one of the most interesting approaches for the evaluation of abstract argumentation frameworks. This particular semantics satisfies a large number of desired properties, among them all properties proposed by Baroni and Giacomin. In recent years, the analysis of argumentation semantics has been extended by further topics, among them characterizations for equivalence notions, intertranslatability issues, and expressibility in terms of signatures (all possible sets of extensions a semantics is capable to express). In this line of research, resolution-based grounded semantics has been neglected so far. We close this gap here, compare the expressibility of resolution-based grounded semantics with other prominent semantics, provide a characterization for strong equivalence and complement existing complexity results.
منابع مشابه
Computational Properties of Resolution-based Grounded Semantics
In the context of Dung’s theory of abstract argumentation frameworks, the recently introduced resolution-based grounded semantics features the unique property of fully complying with a set of general requirements, only partially satisfied by previous literature proposals. This paper contributes to the investigation of resolution-based grounded semantics by analyzing its computational properties...
متن کاملStrong Admissibility Revisited
In the current paper, we re-examine the concept of strong admissibility, as was originally introduced by Baroni and Giacomin. We examine the formal properties of strong admissibility, both in its extension-based and in its labelling-based form. Moreover, we show that strong admissibility plays a vital role in discussionbased proof procedures for grounded semantics. In particular it allows one t...
متن کاملExtending the Grounded Semantics by Logic Programming Semantics
We introduce a formal argumentation method based on normal programs and rewriting systems which is able to define extensions of the grounded semantics based on specific rewriting rules which perform particular kind of reasoning as in reasoning by cases. These new argumentation semantics are intermediate argumentation semantics between the grounded and the preferred semantics.
متن کاملCombining sceptical epistemic reasoning with credulous practical reasoning
This paper proposes an argument-based semantics for combined epistemic and practical reasoning, taking seriously the idea that in certain contexts epistemic reasoning is sceptical while practical reasoning is credulous. The new semantics combines grounded and preferred semantics. A dialectical proof theory is defined which is sound and complete with respect to this semantics and which combines ...
متن کاملCombining sceptical epistemic reasoning with credulous practical reasoning ( corrected version ) 1
This paper proposes an argument-based semantics for combined epistemic and practical reasoning, taking seriously the idea that in certain contexts epistemic reasoning is sceptical while practical reasoning is credulous. The new semantics combines grounded and preferred semantics. A dialectical proof theory is defined which is sound and complete with respect to this semantics and which combines ...
متن کامل