Abstract
We introduce new kinds of semantics for abstract argumentation frameworks, in which, while all the accepted arguments are justified (in the sense that each one of them must be defended), they may still attack each other. The rationality behind such semantics is that in reality there are situations in which contradictory arguments coexist in the same theory, yet the collective set of accepted arguments is not trivialized, in the sense that other arguments may still be rejected.
To provide conflict-tolerant semantics for argumentation frameworks we extend the two standard approaches for defining coherent (conflict-free) semantics for argumentation frameworks: the extension-based approach and the labeling-based approach. We show that the one-to-one relationship between extensions and labelings of conflict-free semantics is carried on to a similar correspondence between the extended approaches for providing conflict-tolerant semantics. Thus, in our setting as well, these are essentially two points of views for the same thing.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Arieli, O., Caminada, M.W.A.: A general QBF-based framework for formalizing argumentation. In: Proc. COMMA 2012. IOS Press (in press, 2012)
Baroni, P., Caminada, M., Giacomin, M.: An introduction to argumentation semantics. The Knowledge Engineering Review 26(4), 365–410 (2011)
Baroni, P., Giacomin, M.: Semantics for abstract argumentation systems. In: Rahwan and Simary [13], pp. 25–44
Belnap, N.D.: A useful four-valued logic. In: Dunn, J.M., Epstein, G. (eds.) Modern Uses of Multiple-Valued Logics, pp. 7–37. Reidel Publishing (1977)
Caminada, M.: On the Issue of Reinstatement in Argumentation. In: Fisher, M., van der Hoek, W., Konev, B., Lisitsa, A. (eds.) JELIA 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4160, pp. 111–123. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)
Caminada, M., Carnielli, W.A., Dunne, P.: Semi-stable semantics. Journal of Logic and Computation (in print, 2012)
Caminada, M., Gabbay, D.M.: A logical account of formal argumentation. Studia Logica. 93(2-3), 109–145 (2009)
Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence 77, 321–357 (1995)
Dung, P.M., Mancarella, P., Toni, F.: Computing ideal sceptical argumentation. Artificial Intelligence 171(10-15), 642–674 (2007)
Dvořák, W.: On the Complexity of Computing the Justification Status of an Argument. In: Modgil, S., Oren, N., Toni, F. (eds.) TAFA 2011. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 7132, pp. 32–49. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)
Egly, U., Gaggl, S.A., Woltran, S.: Answer-set programming encodings for argumentation frameworks. Argument and Computation 1(2), 144–177 (2010)
Rahwan, I., Simari, G.R.: Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence. Springer (2009)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Arieli, O. (2012). Conflict-Tolerant Semantics for Argumentation Frameworks. In: del Cerro, L.F., Herzig, A., Mengin, J. (eds) Logics in Artificial Intelligence. JELIA 2012. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 7519. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33353-8_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33353-8_3
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-33352-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-33353-8
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)