Identifying the Class of Maxi-Consistent Operators in Argumentation
Dung's abstract argumentation theory can be seen as a general framework for non-monotonic reasoning. An important question is then: what is the class of logics that can be subsumed as instantiations of this theory? The goal of this paper is to identify and study the large class of logic-based instantiations of Dung's theory which correspond to the maxi-consistent operator, i.e. to the function which returns maximal consistent subsets of an inconsistent knowledge base. In other words, we study the class of instantiations where very extension of the argumentation system corresponds to exactly one maximal consistent subset of the knowledge base. We show that an attack relation belonging to this class must be conflict-dependent, must not be valid, must not be conflict-complete, must not be symmetric etc. Then, we show that some attack relations serve as lower or upper bounds of the class (e.g. if an attack relation contains canonical undercut then it is not a member of this class). By using our results, we show for all existing attack relations whether or not they belong to this class. We also define new attack relations which are members of this class. Finally, we interpret our results and discuss more general questions, like: what is the added value of argumentation in such a setting? We believe that this work is a first step towards achieving our long-term goal, which is to better understand the role of argumentation and, particularly, the expressivity of logic-based instantiations of Dung-style argumentation frameworks.
Code (0)
등록된 구현이 없습니다.
Tasks
Abstract ArgumentationSimilar Papers 제목 키워드 기반
Inconsistent Databases and Argumentation Frameworks with Collective Attacks
The connection between subset-maximal repairs for inconsistent databases involving various integrity constraints and acceptable sets of arguments within argumentation frameworks has recently drawn growing interest. In th…
On Looking for Local Expansion Invariants in Argumentation Semantics: a Preliminary Report
We study invariant local expansion operators for conflict-free and admissible sets in Abstract Argumentation Frameworks (AFs). Such operators are directly applied on AFs, and are invariant with respect to a chosen "seman…
Abstract ArgumentationPareto Optimality and Strategy Proofness in Group Argument Evaluation (Extended Version)
An inconsistent knowledge base can be abstracted as a set of arguments and a defeat relation among them. There can be more than one consistent way to evaluate such an argumentation graph. Collective argument evaluation i…
Polynomial-time Updates of Epistemic States in a Fragment of Probabilistic Epistemic Argumentation (Technical Report)
Probabilistic epistemic argumentation allows for reasoning about argumentation problems in a way that is well founded by probability theory. Epistemic states are represented by probability functions over possible worlds …
A novel structured argumentation framework for improved explainability of classification tasks
This paper presents a novel framework for structured argumentation, named extend argumentative decision graph ($xADG$). It is an extension of argumentative decision graphs built upon Dung's abstract argumentation graphs.…
Abstract Argumentation