Analyzing the Equivalence Zoo in Abstract Argumentation
Notions of equivalence which are stronger than standard equivalence in the sense that they also take potential modifications of the available information into account have received considerable interest in nonmonotonic reasoning. In this paper we focus on equivalence notions in argumentation. More specifically, we establish a number of new results about the relationships among various equivalence notions for Dung argumentation frameworks which are located between strong equivalence  and standard equivalence. We provide the complete picture for this variety of equivalence relations (which we call the equivalence zoo) for the most important semantics.
KeywordsMinimal Change Abstract Argumentation Argumentation Framework Local Expansion Nonmonotonic Reasoning
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 3.Eiter, T., Fink, M., Tompits, H., Woltran, S.: Strong and uniform equivalence in answer-set programming: Characterizations and complexity results for the non-ground case. In: Proc. AAAI 2005, pp. 695–700 (2005)Google Scholar
- 7.Baumann, R.: What does it take to enforce an argument? Minimal change in abstract argumentation. In: ECAI, pp. 127–132 (2012)Google Scholar
- 8.Baroni, P., Giacomin, M.: Characterizing defeat graphs where argumentation semantics agree. In: Simari, G.P.T. (ed.) 1st International Workshop on Argumentation and Non-Monotonic Reasoning, pp. 33–48 (2007)Google Scholar
- 9.Baumann, R., Brewka, G.: Expanding argumentation frameworks: Enforcing and monotonicity results. In: Proc. COMMA 2010, pp. 75–86. IOS Press (2010)Google Scholar
- 14.Brewka, G., Woltran, S.: Abstract dialectical frameworks. In: Proceedings KR 2010, pp. 102–111 (2010)Google Scholar