Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning and Uncertainty

ECSQARU 2011: Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty pp 38–49Cite as

Strong Equivalence for Argumentation Semantics Based on Conflict-Free Sets

  • Conference paper

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 6717))

Abstract

Argumentation can be understood as a dynamic reasoning process, i.e. it is in particular useful to know the effects additional information causes with respect to a certain semantics. Accordingly, one can identify the information which does not contribute to the results no matter which changes are performed. In other words, we are interested in so-called kernels of frameworks, where two frameworks with the same kernel are then “immune” to all kind of newly added information in the sense that they always produce an equal outcome. The concept of strong equivalence for argumentation frameworks captures this intuition and has been analyzed for several semantics which are all based on the concept of admissibility. Other important semantics have been neglected so far. To close this gap, we give strong equivalence results with respect to naive, stage and cf2 extensions, and we compare the new results with the already existing ones. Furthermore, we analyze strong equivalence for symmetric frameworks and discuss local equivalence, a certain relaxation of strong equivalence.

Supported by the Vienna Science and Technology Fund (WWTF) under grant ICT08-028.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Amgoud, L., Dimopoulos, Y., Moraitis, P.: Making Decisions through Preference-Based Argumentation. In: Proc. KR 2008, pp. 113–123. AAAI Press, Menlo Park (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Amgoud, L., Vesic, S.: Handling Inconsistency with Preference-Based Argumentation. In: Deshpande, A., Hunter, A. (eds.) SUM 2010. LNCS, vol. 6379, pp. 56–69. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  3. Baroni, P., Giacomin, M.: On Principle-based Evaluation of Extension-based Argumentation semantics. Artif. Intell. 171(10-15), 675–700 (2007)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Baroni, P., Giacomin, M., Guida, G.: SCC-Recursiveness: A General Schema for Argumentation Semantics. Artif. Intell. 168(1-2), 162–210 (2005)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Caminada, M.: Semi-Stable Semantics. In: Proc. COMMA 2006. FAIA, vol. 144, pp. 121–130. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Caminada, M., Amgoud, L.: On the Evaluation of Argumentation Formalisms. Artif. Intell. 171(5-6), 286–310 (2007)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Coste-Marquis, S., Devred, C., Marquis, P.: Symmetric Argumentation Frameworks. In: Godo, L. (ed.) ECSQARU 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3571, pp. 317–328. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. Dung, P.M.: On the Acceptability of Arguments and its Fundamental Role in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Logic Programming and n-Person Games. Artif. Intell. 77(2), 321–358 (1995)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Dung, P.M., Mancarella, P., Toni, F.: Computing Ideal Sceptical Argumentation. Artif. Intell. 171(10-15), 642–674 (2007)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. Gaggl, S.A., Woltran, S.: cf2 Semantics Revisited. In: Proc. COMMA 2010. FAIA, vol. 216, pp. 243–254. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Gaggl, S.A., Woltran, S.: Strong Equivalence for Argumentation Semantics based on Conflict-free Sets. Tech. Report DBAI-TR-2011-68, Technische Universität Wien (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Oikarinen, E., Woltran, S.: Characterizing Strong Equivalence for Argumentation Frameworks. In: Proc. KR 2010, pp. 123–133. AAAI Press, Menlo Park (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Verheij, B.: Two Approaches to Dialectical Argumentation: Admissible Sets and Argumentation Stages. In: Proc. NAIC 1996, pp. 357–368 (1996)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Vienna University of Technology, Austria

    Sarah Alice Gaggl & Stefan Woltran

Authors
  1. Sarah Alice Gaggl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stefan Woltran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Electronics, Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Queen’s University Belfast, BT9 5BN, Belfast, UK

    Weiru Liu

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Gaggl, S.A., Woltran, S. (2011). Strong Equivalence for Argumentation Semantics Based on Conflict-Free Sets. In: Liu, W. (eds) Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty. ECSQARU 2011. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 6717. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-22152-1_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-22152-1_4

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-22151-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-22152-1

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation