Abstract
Notions of equivalence which are stronger than standard equivalence in the sense that they also take potential modifications of the available information into account have received considerable interest in nonmonotonic reasoning. In this paper we focus on equivalence notions in argumentation. More specifically, we establish a number of new results about the relationships among various equivalence notions for Dung argumentation frameworks which are located between strong equivalence [1] and standard equivalence. We provide the complete picture for this variety of equivalence relations (which we call the equivalence zoo) for the most important semantics.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Oikarinen, E., Woltran, S.: Characterizing strong equivalence for argumentation frameworks. Artificial Intelligence 175(14-15), 1985–2009 (2011)
Lifschitz, V., Pearce, D., Valverde, A.: Strongly equivalent logic programs. ACM Trans. Comput. Log. 2(4), 526–541 (2001)
Eiter, T., Fink, M., Tompits, H., Woltran, S.: Strong and uniform equivalence in answer-set programming: Characterizations and complexity results for the non-ground case. In: Proc. AAAI 2005, pp. 695–700 (2005)
Bench-Capon, T.J.M., Dunne, P.E.: Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Artificial Intelligence 171(10-15), 619–641 (2007)
Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence 77(2), 321–357 (1995)
Baumann, R.: Normal and strong expansion equivalence for argumentation frameworks. Artificial Intelligence 193, 18–44 (2012)
Baumann, R.: What does it take to enforce an argument? Minimal change in abstract argumentation. In: ECAI, pp. 127–132 (2012)
Baroni, P., Giacomin, M.: Characterizing defeat graphs where argumentation semantics agree. In: Simari, G.P.T. (ed.) 1st International Workshop on Argumentation and Non-Monotonic Reasoning, pp. 33–48 (2007)
Baumann, R., Brewka, G.: Expanding argumentation frameworks: Enforcing and monotonicity results. In: Proc. COMMA 2010, pp. 75–86. IOS Press (2010)
Baumann, R.: Splitting an argumentation framework. In: Delgrande, J.P., Faber, W. (eds.) LPNMR 2011. LNCS, vol. 6645, pp. 40–53. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)
Baroni, P., Giacomin, M.: On principle-based evaluation of extension-based argumentation semantics. Artificial Intelligence 171(10-15), 675–700 (2007)
Besnard, P., Hunter, A.: A logic-based theory of deductive arguments. Artificial Intelligence 128(1-2), 203–235 (2001)
Amgoud, L., Vesic, S.: On the equivalence of logic-based argumentation systems. In: Benferhat, S., Grant, J. (eds.) SUM 2011. LNCS, vol. 6929, pp. 123–136. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)
Brewka, G., Woltran, S.: Abstract dialectical frameworks. In: Proceedings KR 2010, pp. 102–111 (2010)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Baumann, R., Brewka, G. (2013). Analyzing the Equivalence Zoo in Abstract Argumentation. In: Leite, J., Son, T.C., Torroni, P., van der Torre, L., Woltran, S. (eds) Computational Logic in Multi-Agent Systems. CLIMA 2013. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 8143. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40624-9_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40624-9_2
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-40623-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-40624-9
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)