On the Equivalence of Logic-Based Argumentation Systems

  • Leila Amgoud
  • Srdjan Vesic
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6929)

Abstract

Equivalence between two argumentation systems means mainly that the two systems return the same outputs. It can be used for different purposes, namely in order to show whether two systems that are built over the same knowledge base but with distinct attack relations return the same outputs, and more importantly to check whether an infinite system can be reduced into a finite one.

Recently, the equivalence between abstract argumentation systems was investigated. Two categories of equivalence criteria were particularly proposed. The first category compares directly the outputs of the two systems (e.g. their extensions) while the second compares the outputs of their extended versions (i.e. the systems augmented by the same set of arguments). It was shown that only identical systems are equivalent w.r.t. those criteria.

In this paper, we study when two logic-based argumentation systems are equivalent. We refine existing criteria by considering the internal structure of arguments and propose new ones. Then, we identify cases where two systems are equivalent. In particular, we show that under some reasonable conditions on the logic underlying an argumentation system, the latter has an equivalent finite subsystem. This subsystem constitutes a threshold under which arguments of the system have not yet attained their final status and consequently adding a new argument may result in status change. From that threshold, the statuses of all arguments become stable.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Amgoud, L., Besnard, P.: Bridging the gap between abstract argumentation systems and logic. In: Godo, L., Pugliese, A. (eds.) SUM 2009. LNCS, vol. 5785, pp. 12–27. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C.: A reasoning model based on the production of acceptable arguments. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 34, 197–216 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baroni, P., Giacomin, M., Guida, G.: Scc-recursiveness: a general schema for argumentation semantics. Artificial Intelligence Journal 168, 162–210 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation 13(3), 429–448 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Caminada, M.: Semi-stable semantics. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2006), pp. 121–130 (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence Journal 77, 321–357 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dunne, P., Hunter, A., McBurney, P., Parsons, S., Wooldridge, M.: Inconsistency tolerance in weighted argument systems. In: AAMAS, pp. 851–858 (2009)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gorogiannis, N., Hunter, A.: Instantiating abstract argumentation with classical logic arguments: Postulates and properties. Artificial Intelligence Journal (in press, 2011)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Oikarinen, E., Woltran, S.: Characterizing strong equivalence for argumentation frameworks. In: Proceedings of KR 2010 (2010)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tarski, A.: On Some Fundamental Concepts of Metamathematics. In: Woodger, J.H. (ed.) Logic, Semantics, Metamathematic. Oxford Uni. Press, Oxford (1956)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Leila Amgoud
    • 1
  • Srdjan Vesic
    • 1
  1. 1.IRIT – CNRSToulouse Cedex 9France

Personalised recommendations