Assumption-Based Argumentation Translated to Argumentation Frameworks

نویسندگان

  • Tuomo Lehtonen
  • Johannes P. Wallner
  • Matti Järvisalo
چکیده

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 frameworks. We translated the ABA frameworks to AFs such that reasoning tasks on ABA frameworks can be carried out on the produced AF instances. The translation is presented in [4]. After filtering, including enforcing a time-out on the generation, and restricting to AFs with at most 1500 arguments, this procedure resulted in 426 AFs, among these 236 generated from acyclic ABA frameworks and 190 from cyclic ABA frameworks. The number of arguments in the obtained AF instances range from 15 to 1449 arguments, many of them with a dense attack graph. File names state the parameters used for generation of the original ABA: afinput exp [acyclic|cycles] [depvary|indvaryV] stepS batch yyyBB indicating presence of cycles, size and to which series the instance belongs (step S and depvary or indvaryV with V ∈ {1, 2, 3} see [2, Table 11]), and a batch identifier.

منابع مشابه

Updates of argumentation frameworks

Two main topics are studied in this work. First, updates of assumption-based frameworks over deductive systems. Second, a problem of an inertia of an admissible set after an update of an abstract argumentation framework. We consider an assumption-based framework over a logic program as composed of three parts – an argumentation framework, a deduction machinery and a knowledge base (a logic prog...

متن کامل

A Sound and Complete Dialectical Proof Procedure for Sceptical Preferred Argumentation

We present a dialectical proof procedure for computing skeptical preferred semantics in argumentation frameworks. The proof procedure is based on the dispute derivation introduced for assumption-based framework. We prove the soundness of the procedure for any argumentation frameworks and the completeness for a general class of finitary argumentation frameworks containing the class of finite arg...

متن کامل

A Translation-Based Approach for Revision of Argumentation Frameworks

In this paper, we investigate the revision issue for Dung argumentation frameworks. The main idea is that such frameworks can be translated into propositional formulae, allowing the use of propositional revision operators to perform a rational minimal change. Our translationbased approach to revising argumentation frameworks can take advantage of any propositional revision operator ◦. Via a tra...

متن کامل

Relations between assumption-based approaches in nonmonotonic logic and formal argumentation

In this paper we make a contribution to the unification of formal models of defeasible reasoning. We present several translations between formal argumentation frameworks and nonmonotonic logics for reasoning with plausible assumptions. More specifically, we translate adaptive logics into assumption-based argumentation and ASPIC, ASPIC into assumption-based argumentation and a fragment of assump...

متن کامل

A dialectic procedure for sceptical, assumption-based argumentation

We present a procedure for computing the sceptical “ideal semantics” for argumentation in assumption-based frameworks. This semantics was first proposed for logic programming in [1], extending the well-founded semantics. The proof procedure is defined by means of a form of dispute derivations, obtained by modifying the dispute derivations given in [2] for computing credulous admissible argument...

متن کامل

ذخیره در منابع من


  با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید

متن کامل
عنوان ژورنال:

دوره   شماره 

صفحات  -

تاریخ انتشار 2017