Abstract
This paper investigates the outputs of abstract logic-based argumentation systems under stable semantics. We delimit the number of stable extensions a system may have. We show that in the best case, an argumentation system infers exactly the common conclusions drawn from the maximal consistent subbases of the original knowledge base. This output corresponds to that returned by a system under the naive semantics. In the worst case, counter-intuitive results are returned. In the intermediary case, the system forgets intuitive conclusions. These two latter cases are due to the use of skewed attack relations. The results show that stable semantics is either useless or unsuitable in logic-based argumentation systems. Finally, we show that under this semantics, argumentation systems may inherit the problems of coherence-based approaches.
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
Amgoud, L.: Postulates for logic-based argumentation systems. In: WL4AI: ECAI Workshop on Weighted Logics for AI (2012)
Amgoud, L., Besnard, P.: Bridging the Gap between Abstract Argumentation Systems and Logic. In: Godo, L., Pugliese, A. (eds.) SUM 2009. LNCS, vol. 5785, pp. 12–27. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)
Amgoud, L., Besnard, P.: A Formal Analysis of Logic-Based Argumentation Systems. In: Deshpande, A., Hunter, A. (eds.) SUM 2010. LNCS, vol. 6379, pp. 42–55. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)
Besnard, P., Hunter, A.: A logic-based theory of deductive arguments. Artificial Intelligence 128(1-2), 203–235 (2001)
Caminada, M., Amgoud, L.: On the evaluation of argumentation formalisms. Artificial Intelligence Journal 171(5-6), 286–310 (2007)
Cayrol, C.: On the relation between argumentation and non-monotonic coherence-based entailment. In: IJCAI 1995, pp. 1443–1448 (1995)
D2.2. Towards a consensual formal model: inference part. Deliverable of ASPIC project (2004)
Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence Journal 77, 321–357 (1995)
Elvang-Gøransson, M., Fox, J.P., Krause, P.: Acceptability of Arguments as Logical Uncertainty. In: Moral, S., Kruse, R., Clarke, E. (eds.) ECSQARU 1993. LNCS, vol. 747, pp. 85–90. Springer, Heidelberg (1993)
García, A., Simari, G.: Defeasible logic programming: an argumentative approach. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 4, 95–138 (2004)
Gorogiannis, N., Hunter, A.: Instantiating abstract argumentation with classical logic arguments: Postulates and properties. Artificial Intelligence Journal 175(9-10), 1479–1497 (2011)
Pollock, J.L.: How to reason defeasibly. Artificial Intelligence Journal 57, 1–42 (1992)
Prakken, H.: An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. Journal of Argument and Computation 1, 93–124 (2010)
Rescher, N., Manor, R.: On inference from inconsistent premises. Journal of Theory and Decision 1, 179–219 (1970)
Tarski, A.: On Some Fundamental Concepts of Metamathematics. In: Woodger, E.H. (ed.) Logic, Semantics, Metamathematics. Oxford Uni. Press (1956)
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
Amgoud, L. (2012). Stable Semantics in Logic-Based Argumentation. In: Hüllermeier, E., Link, S., Fober, T., Seeger, B. (eds) Scalable Uncertainty Management. SUM 2012. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 7520. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33362-0_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33362-0_5
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-33361-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-33362-0
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)