What Is a Reasonable Argumentation Semantics?
نویسندگان
چکیده
In view of the plethora of different argumentation semantics, we consider the question what the essential properties of a “reasonable” semantics are. We discuss three attempts of such a characterization, based on computational complexity, logical expressivity and invariance under partial duplication, which are satisfied by most, if not all, known semantics. We then challenge each of these proposals by exhibiting plausible semantics which still not satisfy our criteria, demonstrating the difficulty of our endeavor.
منابع مشابه
Practical argumentation semantics for socially efficient defeasible consequence
An abstract argumentation framework and the semantics, often called Dungean semantics, give a general framework for nonmonotonic logics. In the last fifteen years, a great number of papers in computational argumentation adopt Dungean semantics as a fundamental principle for evaluating various kinds of defeasible consequences. Recently, many papers address problems not only with theoretical reas...
متن کاملArgument, Discussion and Rationality
When applying argumentation theory for purposes of what to believe or what to do, the idea is to follow a three-step process. In the first step, one starts with a particular knowledge base and determines what are the possible defeasible derivations (called arguments) one can make using this knowledge base. These derivations then become the nodes of a directed graph called an argumentation frame...
متن کاملArgumentation Semantics as Formal Discussion
In the current review paper, we provide an overview of how mainstream argumentation semantics can be interpreted in terms of structured discussion. The idea is that an argument is justified according to a particular argumentation semantics iff it is possible to win a discussion of a particular type. Hence, different argumentation semantics correspond to different types of discussion. Our aim is...
متن کاملInvestigating the Relationship between Argumentation Semantics via Signatures
Understanding the relation between different semantics in abstract argumentation is an important issue, not least since such semantics capture the basic ingredients of different approaches to nonmonotonic reasoning. The question we are interested in relates two semantics as follows: What are the necessary and sufficient conditions, such that we can decide, for any two sets of extensions, whethe...
متن کاملVerifiability of Argumentation Semantics
Dung’s abstract argumentation theory is a widely used formalism to model conflicting information and to draw conclusions in such situations. Hereby, the knowledge is represented by so-called argumentation frameworks (AFs) and the reasoning is done via semantics extracting acceptable sets. All reasonable semantics are based on the notion of conflict-freeness which means that arguments are only j...
متن کامل