The cf2 argumentation semantics revisited

Abstract argumentation frameworks nowadays provide the most popular formal- ization of argumentation on a conceptual level. Numerous semantics for this paradigm have been proposed, whereby the cf2 semantics has shown to solve particular problems concerned with odd-length cycles in such frameworks. Due to the complicated definition of this semantics it has somehow been neglected in the literature. In this article, we introduce an alternative characterization of the cf2 semantics which, roughly speaking, avoids the recursive computation of sub-frameworks. This facilitates further investigation steps, like a complete complexity analysis. Furthermore, we show how the notion of strong equivalence can be characterized in terms of the cf2 semantics. In contrast to other semantics, it turns out that for the cf2 semantics strong equivalence coincides with syntactical equivalence. We make this particular behavior more explicit by defining a new property for argumenta- tion semantics, called the succinctness property. If a semantics satisfies the succinctness property, then for every framework F , all its attacks contribute to the evaluation of at least one framework F 0 containing F. We finally characterize strong equivalence also for the stage and the naive semantics. Together with known results these characterizations imply that none of the prominent semantics for abstract argumentation, except the cf2 semantics, satisfies the succinctness property.

[1]  Pietro Baroni,et al.  Semantics of Abstract Argument Systems , 2009, Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence.

[2]  Paolo Mancarella,et al.  Computing ideal sceptical argumentation , 2007, Artif. Intell..

[3]  Paul E. Dunne,et al.  Computational properties of argument systems satisfying graph-theoretic constraints , 2007, Artif. Intell..

[4]  Paul E. Dunne,et al.  Semi-stable semantics , 2006, J. Log. Comput..

[5]  Martin Caminada,et al.  Computational Complexity of Semi-stable Semantics in Abstract Argumentation Frameworks , 2008, JELIA.

[6]  Phan Minh Dung,et al.  On the Acceptability of Arguments and its Fundamental Role in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Logic Programming and n-Person Games , 1995, Artif. Intell..

[7]  Robert E. Tarjan,et al.  Depth-First Search and Linear Graph Algorithms , 1972, SIAM J. Comput..

[8]  Martin Caminada,et al.  On the evaluation of argumentation formalisms , 2007, Artif. Intell..

[9]  Pietro Baroni,et al.  On principle-based evaluation of extension-based argumentation semantics , 2007, Artif. Intell..

[10]  Pietro Baroni,et al.  Solving Semantic Problems with Odd-Length Cycles in Argumentation , 2003, ECSQARU.

[11]  Stefan Woltran,et al.  Answer-set programming encodings for argumentation frameworks , 2010, Argument Comput..

[12]  Juan Carlos Nieves,et al.  Expressing Extension-Based Semantics Based on Stratified Minimal Models , 2009, WoLLIC.

[13]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  Argumentation in artificial intelligence , 2007, Artif. Intell..

[14]  Srdjan Vesic,et al.  On the Equivalence of Logic-Based Argumentation Systems , 2011, SUM.

[15]  Dov M. Gabbay,et al.  The Handling of Loops in Talmudic Logic, with Application to Odd and Even Loops in Argumentation , 2014, HOWARD-60.

[16]  Stefan Woltran,et al.  cf2 Semantics Revisited , 2010, COMMA.

[17]  Henry Prakken,et al.  An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments , 2010, Argument Comput..

[18]  Stefan Woltran,et al.  Complexity of semi-stable and stage semantics in argumentation frameworks , 2010, Inf. Process. Lett..

[19]  Yannis Dimopoulos,et al.  Graph Theoretical Structures in Logic Programs and Default Theories , 1996, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[20]  Stefan Woltran,et al.  Characterizing Strong Equivalence for Argumentation Frameworks , 2010, KR.

[21]  Pietro Baroni,et al.  Resolution-based argumentation semantics , 2008, COMMA.

[22]  Pietro Baroni,et al.  SCC-recursiveness: a general schema for argumentation semantics , 2005, Artif. Intell..

[23]  Bart Verheij,et al.  Two Approaches to Dialectical Argumentation: Admissible Sets and Argumentation Stages , 1999 .

[24]  Stefan Woltran,et al.  Strong Equivalence for Argumentation Semantics Based on Conflict-Free Sets , 2011, ECSQARU.