Hunt for the Collapse of Semantics in Infinite Abstract Argumentation Frameworks
نویسنده
چکیده
In this work we discuss examples of infinite abstract argumentation frameworks (AFs). Our focus is mainly on existence of extensions of semantics such as semi-stable and stage semantics, as opposed to the collapse where some argumentation frameworks prevent any extension. We visit known examples from the literature and present novel variants. Finally, we also give insights into extension existence conditions. 1998 ACM Subject Classification F.2.2 Computations on discrete structures, F.4.1 Mathematical Logic, I.2 Artificial Intelligence
منابع مشابه
On 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 کاملPerfection in Abstract Argumentation1
It is a well-known fact that stable semantics might not provide any extensions for some given abstract argumentation framework. Arguably such frameworks might be considered futile, at least with respect to stable semantics. We propagate σ -perfection stating that for a given argumentation graph all induced subgraphs provide σ -extensions. We discuss perfection and conditions for popular abstrac...
متن کاملInfinite Argumentation Frameworks - On the Existence and Uniqueness of Extensions
Abstract properties satisfied for finite structures do not necessarily carry over to infinite structures. Two of the most basic properties are existence and uniqueness of something. In this work we study these properties for acceptable sets of arguments, so-called extensions, in the field of abstract argumentation. We review already known results, present new proofs or explain sketchy old ones ...
متن کاملReasoning about Preferences in Structured Extended Argumentation Frameworks
This paper combines two recent extensions of Dung’s abstract argumentation frameworks in order to define an abstract formalism for reasoning about preferences in structured argumentation frameworks. First, extended argumentation frameworks extend Dung frameworks with attacks on attacks, thus providing an abstract dialectical semantics that accommodates argumentation-based reasoning about prefer...
متن کاملSocial Abstract Argumentation
In this paper we take a step towards using Argumentation in Social Networks and introduce Social Abstract Argumentation Frameworks, an extension of Dung’s Abstract Argumentation Frameworks that incorporates social voting. We propose a class of semantics for these new Social Abstract Argumentation Frameworks and prove some important non-trivial properties which are crucial for their applicabilit...
متن کامل