Expanding Argumentation Frameworks: Enforcing and Monotonicity Results
نویسندگان
چکیده
This paper addresses the problem of revising a Dung-style argumentation framework by adding finitely many new arguments which may interact with old ones. We study the behavior of the extensions of an argumentation framework if we extend it (new information) and/or change the underlying semantics (change of proof standards). We show both possibility and impossibility results related to the problem of enforcing a desired set of arguments. Furthermore we will prove some monotonicity results for a special class of expansions with respect to the cardinality of the set of extensions and the justification state.
منابع مشابه
Assumption-Based Argumentation Translated to Argumentation Frameworks
This benchmark set consists of 426 instances, i.e., argumentation frameworks (AFs) [3] in apx format, obtained from translating instances from assumptionbased argumentation (ABA) [1] to AFs. The ABA benchmark is detailed in [2] and contains 680 ABA frameworks generated via a random generation model with several parameters. In particular, the ABA benchmark set includes cyclic and acyclic ABA fra...
متن کاملMetalogical Contributions to the Nonmonotonic Theory of Abstract Argumentation
The study of nonmonotonic logics is one mayor field of Artificial Intelligence (AI). The reason why such kind of formalisms are so attractive to model human reasoning is that they allow to withdraw former conclusion. At the end of the 1980s the novel idea of using argumentation to model nonmonotonic reasoning emerged in AI. Nowadays argumentation theory is a vibrant research area in AI, coverin...
متن کاملHow to Argue for Anything: Enforcing Arbitrary Sets of Labellings using AFs
We contribute to the investigation of possible outcomes of argumentation under semantics formulated using argumentation frameworks (AFs). In particular, we study this question for the labelling-based formulation of such semantics, generalizing previous work which has focused on extensions. In this paper, we restrict attention to the preferred and semistable semantics, showing that as long as we...
متن کاملClassification and strategical issues of argumentation games on structured argumentation frameworks
This paper aims at giving a classification of argumentation games agents play within a multi-agent setting. We investigate different scenarios of such argumentation games that differ in the protocol used for argumentation, i. e. direct, synchronous, and dialectical argumentation protocols, the awareness that agents have on other agents beliefs, and different settings for the preferences of agen...
متن کاملOn the Existence of Semi-Stable Extensions
In this paper, we describe an open problem in abstract argumentation theory: the precise conditions under which semi-stable extensions exist. Although each finite argumentation framework can be shown to have at least one semi-stable extension, this is no longer the case when infinite argumentation frameworks are considered. This puts semi-stable semantics between stable and preferred semantics....
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:
دوره شماره
صفحات -
تاریخ انتشار 2010