[Back]

R. Baumann, T. Linsbichler, S. Woltran:
"Verifiability of argumentation semantics";
Talk: 16th International Workshop on Non-monotonic reasoning (NMR 2016), Kapstadt; 2016-04-22 - 2016-04-24; in: "Proceedings of the 16th International Workshop on Non-monotonic reasoning", G. Kern-Isberner, R. Wassermann (ed.); (2016), 10 pages.

Dung's abstract argumentation theory is a widely used formalism to model conflicting information and to draw conclusions in such situations. Hereby, the knowledge is represented by so-called argumentation frameworks (AFs) and the reasoning is done via semantics extracting acceptable sets. All reasonable semantics are based on the notion of conflict-freeness which means that arguments are only jointly acceptable when they are not linked within the AF. In this paper, we study the question which information on top of conflict-free sets is needed to compute extensions of a semantics at hand. We introduce a hierarchy of so-called verification classes specifying the required amount of information. We show that well-known standard semantics are exactly verifiable through a certain such class. Our framework also gives a means to study semantics lying inbetween known semantics, thus contributing to a more abstract understanding of the different features argumentation semantics offer.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1603.09502v1