The Effect of Preferences in Abstract Argumentation Under a Claim-Centric View
In this paper, we study the effect of preferences in abstract argumentation under a claim-centric perspective. Recent work has revealed that semantical and computational properties can change when reasoning is performed on claim-level rather than on the argument-level, while under certain natural restrictions (arguments with the same claims have the same outgoing attacks) these properties are conserved. We now investigate these effects when, in addition, preferences have to be taken into account and consider four prominent reductions to handle preferences between arguments. As we shall see, these reductions give rise to different classes of claim-augmented argumentation frameworks, and behave differently in terms of semantic properties and computational complexity. This strengthens the view that the actual choice for handling preferences has to be taken with care.
Code (0)
등록된 구현이 없습니다.
Tasks
Abstract ArgumentationSimilar Papers 제목 키워드 기반
An Extension-based Approach for Computing and Verifying Preferences in Abstract Argumentation
We present an extension-based approach for computing and verifying preferences in an abstract argumentation system. Although numerous argumentation semantics have been developed previously for identifying acceptable sets…
Abstract ArgumentationPreference-Based Abstract Argumentation for Case-Based Reasoning (with Appendix)
In the pursuit of enhancing the efficacy and flexibility of interpretable, data-driven classification models, this work introduces a novel incorporation of user-defined preferences with Abstract Argumentation and Case-Ba…
Abstract ArgumentationInterpretable Machine LearningAbstract Argumentation and the Rational Man
Abstract argumentation has emerged as a method for non-monotonic reasoning that has gained popularity in the symbolic artificial intelligence community. In the literature, the different approaches to abstract argumentati…
Abstract ArgumentationDecision MakingOn the Existence of an Inverse Solution for Preference-Based Reductions in Argumentation
Preference-based argumentation frameworks (PAFs) extend Dung's approach to abstract argumentation (AAFs) by encoding preferences over arguments. Such preferences control the transformation of attacks into defeats, and di…
On Strong Equivalence Notions in Logic Programming and Abstract Argumentation
Strong equivalence between knowledge bases ensures the possibility of replacing one with the other without affecting reasoning outcomes, in any given context. This makes it a crucial property in nonmonotonic formalisms. …