[Zurück]

S. Gaggl, S. Woltran:
"Strong Equivalence for Argumentation Semantics based on Conflict-free Sets";
Bericht für TU Wien, Institut für Informationssysteme; Berichts-Nr. DBAI-TR-2011-68, 2011; 19 S.

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 the socalled kernel of a framework, where two frameworks with the same kernel under a certain semantics are then "immune" to all kind of newly added information and still produce the same outcome. The concept of strong equivalence for argumentation frameworks captures
this intuition and has been analyzed for several semantics which are all admissible based. 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.

Projektleitung Stefan Woltran:
Neue Methoden für Analyse, Vergleich und Lösung von Argumentationsproblemen