Abstract
In the context of Dung’s abstract framework for argumentation, two main semantics have been considered to assign a defeat status to arguments: the grounded semantics and the preferred semantics. While the two semantics agree in most situations, there are cases where the preferred semantics appears to be more powerful. However, we notice that the preferred semantics gives rise to counterintuitive results in some other cases, related to the presence of odd-length cycles in the attack relation between arguments. To solve these problems, we propose a new semantics which preserves the desirable properties of the preferred semantics, while correctly dealing with odd-length cycles. We check the behavior of the proposed semantics in a number of examples and discuss its relationships with both grounded and preferred semantics.
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
Pollock, J.L.: How to reason defeasibly. Artificial Intelligence 57, 1–42 (1992)
Parsons, S., Sierra, C., Jennings, N.: Agents that reason and negotiate by arguing. Journal of Logic and Computation 8, 261–292 (1998)
Baroni, P., Giacomin, M., Guida, G.: Extending abstract argumentation systems theory. Artificial Intelligence 120, 251–270 (2000)
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)
Prakken, H., Vreeswijk, G.A.W.: Logics for defeasible argumentation. In: Gabbay, D.M., Guenthner, F. (eds.) Handbook of Philosophical Logic, 2nd edn. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2001)
Pollock, J.L.: Justification and defeat. Artificial Intelligence 67, 377–407 (1994)
Vreeswijk, G.A.W.: Abstract argumentation systems. Artificial Intelligence 90, 225–279 (1997)
Makinson, D., Sclechta, K.: Floating conclusions and zombie paths: Two deep difficulties in the ‘directly skeptical’ approach to defeasible inheritance networks. Artificial Intelligence 48, 199–209 (1991)
Schlechta, K.: Directly sceptical inheritance cannot capture the intersection of extensions. Journal of Logic and Computation 3, 455–467 (1993)
Pollock, J.L.: Defeasible reasoning with variable degrees of justification. Artificial Intelligence 133, 233–282 (2001)
Walton, D., Krabbe, E.: Commitment in Dialogue: Basic concept of interpersonal reasoning. State University of New York Press, Albany (1995)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2003 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Baroni, P., Giacomin, M. (2003). Solving Semantic Problems with Odd-Length Cycles in Argumentation. In: Nielsen, T.D., Zhang, N.L. (eds) Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty. ECSQARU 2003. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 2711. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-45062-7_36
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-45062-7_36
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-40494-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-45062-7
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive