Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

What Is a Reasonable Argumentation Semantics?

  • Chapter
Advances in Knowledge Representation, Logic Programming, and Abstract Argumentation

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 9060))

Abstract

In view of the plethora of different argumentation semantics, we consider the question what the essential properties of a “reasonable” semantics are. We discuss three attempts of such a characterization, based on computational complexity, logical expressivity and invariance under partial duplication, which are satisfied by most, if not all, known semantics. We then challenge each of these proposals by exhibiting plausible semantics which still not satisfy our criteria, demonstrating the difficulty of our endeavor.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C., Lagasquie, M.-C., Livet, P.: On bipolarity in argumentation frameworks. Int. Journal of Intelligent Systems 23, 1–32 (2008)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Amgoud, L., Vesic, S.: Repairing preference-based argumentation frameworks. In: Proc. IJCAI 2009, pp. 665–670 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Baroni, P., Caminada, M., Giacomin, M.: An introduction to argumentation semantics. Knowledge Eng. Review 26(4), 365–410 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Baroni, P., Giacomin, M.: On principle-based evaluation of extension-based argumentation semantics. Artif. Intell. 171(10-15), 675–700 (2007)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. J. Log. Comput. 13(3), 429–448 (2003)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Brewka, G., Polberg, S., Woltran, S.: Generalizations of dung frameworks and their role in formal argumentation. IEEE Intel. Sys. 29(1), 30–38 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Brewka, G., Woltran, S.: Abstract Dialectical Frameworks. In: Proc. KR 2010, pp. 102–111 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Büchi, R.J.: On a decision method in restricted second order arithmetic. In: Proc. Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science 1960, pp. 1–11 (1962)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Caminada, M., Amgoud, L.: On the evaluation of argumentation formalisms. Artif. Intell. 171(5-6), 286–310 (2007)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. Coste-Marquis, S., Devred, C., Marquis, P.: Symmetric argumentation frameworks. In: Godo, L. (ed.) ECSQARU 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3571, pp. 317–328. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. Dimopoulos, Y., Torres, A.: Graph theoretical structures in logic programs and default theories. Theor. Comput. Sci. 170(1-2), 209–244 (1996)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif. Intell. 77(2), 321–358 (1995)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Dunne, P.E., Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Coherence in finite argument systems. Artif. Intell. 141(1/2), 187–203 (2002)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Dunne, P.E., Wooldridge, M.: Complexity of abstract argumentation. In: Simari, G., Rahwan, I. (eds.) Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 85–104. Springer, US (2009)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  15. Dvořák, W., Gaggl, S.A.: Stage semantics and the scc-recursive schema for argumentation semantics. J. Log. Comput. 2014 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Dvořák, W., Järvisalo, M., Wallner, J.P., Woltran, S.: Complexity-sensitive decision procedures for abstract argumentation. Artif. Intell. 206, 53–78 (2014)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Dvořák, W., Szeider, S., Woltran, S.: Abstract argumentation via monadic second order logic. In: Hüllermeier, E., Link, S., Fober, T., Seeger, B. (eds.) SUM 2012. LNCS, vol. 7520, pp. 85–98. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  18. Egly, U., Gaggl, S., Woltran, S.: Answer-set programming encodings for argumentation frameworks. In Argument and Computation 1(2), 147–177 (2010)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. Modgil, S., Caminada, M.: Proof theories and algorithms for abstract argumentation frameworks. In: Rahwan, I., Simari, G. (eds.) Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 105–132. Springer (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Oikarinen, E., Woltran, S.: Characterizing strong equivalence for argumentation frameworks. Artif. Intell. 175(14-15), 1985–2009 (2011)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Computational Logic Group, Technische Universität Dresden, Germany

    Sarah Alice Gaggl, Sebastian Rudolph & Michaël Thomazo

Authors
  1. Sarah Alice Gaggl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sebastian Rudolph
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michaël Thomazo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institut für Informationssysteme, Technische Universität Wien, 184/3, Abteilung für wissensbasierte Systeme, Favoritenstraße 9-11, 1040, Wien, Austria

    Thomas Eiter

  2. Institut für Informatik, Abteilung Intelligente Systeme, Universität Leipzig, PF 100920, 04009, Leipzig, Germany

    Hannes Strass

  3. Department of Computer Science, University of Kentucky, 309 Davis Marksbury Building, 329 Rose Street, 40506-0633, Lexington, KY, USA

    Mirosław Truszczyński

  4. Institut für Informationssysteme, Technische Universität Wien, 184/2, Abteilung für Datenbanken und Artificial Intelligence, Favoritenstraße 9-11, 1040, Wien, Austria

    Stefan Woltran

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Gaggl, S.A., Rudolph, S., Thomazo, M. (2015). What Is a Reasonable Argumentation Semantics?. In: Eiter, T., Strass, H., Truszczyński, M., Woltran, S. (eds) Advances in Knowledge Representation, Logic Programming, and Abstract Argumentation. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 9060. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-14726-0_21

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-14726-0_21

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-14725-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-14726-0

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation