On the existence and multiplicity of extensions in dialectical argumentation
نویسنده
چکیده
In the present paper, the existence and multiplicity problems of extensions are addressed. The focus is on extension of the stable type. The main result of the paper is an elegant characterization of the existence and multiplicity of extensions in terms of the notion of dialectical justification, a close cousin of the notion of admissibility. The characterization is given in the context of the particular logic for dialectical argumentation DEFLOG. The results are of direct relevance for several well-established models of defeasible reasoning (like default logic, logic programming and argumentation frameworks), since elsewhere dialectical argumentation has been shown to have close formal connections with these models.
منابع مشابه
Two Approaches to Dialectical Argumentation: Admissible Sets and Argumentation Stages
Currently there is a revival of the study of dialectical argumentation in the artificial intelligence community. There are good reasons why: First, the notions of argument and counterargument shed new light on nonmonotonic reasoning. Second, the process character of dialectical argumentation inspires new computational techniques. In a recent important paper, Dung [1] has studied the relations o...
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 کاملA Dialectical Proof Theory for Universal Acceptance in Coherent Logic-Based Argumentation Frameworks
Given a logic-based argumentation framework built over a knowledge base in a logical language and a query in that language. The query is universally accepted if it is entailed from all extensions. As shown in [2, 14], universal acceptance is different from skeptical acceptance as a query may be entailed from different arguments distributed over all extensions but not necessarily skeptical ones....
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 کاملOn the Relative Expressiveness of Argumentation Frameworks, Normal Logic Programs and Abstract Dialectical Frameworks
We analyse the expressiveness of the two-valued semantics of abstract argumentation frameworks, normal logic programsargumentation frameworks, normal logic programs and abstract dialectical frameworks. By expressiveness we mean the ability to encode a desired set of two-valued interpretations over a given propositional signature using only atoms from that signature. While the computational comp...
متن کامل