[Back]

R. Baumann, T. Linsbichler, S. Woltran:
"Verifiability of argumentation semantics";
Talk: 6th International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2016), Potsdam; 2016-09-12 - 2016-09-16; in: "Computational Models of Argument - Proceedings of COMMA 2016", P. Baroni, Th. F. Gordon, T. Scheffler, M. Stede (ed.); IOS Press, Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications 287 (2016), ISBN: 978-1-61499-685-9; 83 - 94.

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 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 verification classes specifying the required amount of information and show that well-known semantics are exactly verifiable through a certain such class. This also gives a means to study semantics lying between known semantics, thus contributing to a more abstract understanding of the different features argumentation semantics offer.