A labelling approach for ideal and stage semantics

In this document, we describe the concepts of ideal semantics and stage semantics for abstract argumentation in terms of argument labellings. The difference between the traditional extensions approach and the labelling approach is that where the former only identifies the sets of accepted arguments, the latter also identifies the rejected arguments as well as the arguments that are neither accepted nor rejected. So far, the labellings approach has been successfully applied to complete, grounded, preferred, stable and semi-stable semantics, as well as to the concept of admissibility. In the current paper, we continue this line of research by showing that ideal semantics and stage semantics can also be described in terms of argument labellings.

[1]  Dirk Vermeir,et al.  Robust Semantics for Argumentation Frameworks , 1999, J. Log. Comput..

[2]  Dov M. Gabbay,et al.  A Logical Account of Formal Argumentation , 2009, Stud Logica.

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

[4]  Gabriella Pigozzi,et al.  On judgment aggregation in abstract argumentation , 2009, Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems.

[5]  Guillermo Ricardo Simari,et al.  A Mathematical Treatment of Defeasible Reasoning and its Implementation , 1992, Artif. Intell..

[6]  Martin Caminada,et al.  On the Issue of Reinstatement in Argumentation , 2006, JELIA.

[7]  Gerard Vreeswijk.  An algorithm to compute minimally grounded and admissible defence sets in argument systems , 2006, COMMA.

[8]  Bart Verheij,et al.  DefLog: on the Logical Interpretation of Prima Facie Justified Assumptions , 2003, J. Log. Comput..

[9]  Simon Parsons,et al.  Modelling dialogues using argumentation , 2000, Proceedings Fourth International Conference on MultiAgent Systems.

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

[11]  Martin Caminada,et al.  An Algorithm for Stage Semantics , 2010, COMMA.

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

[13]  Iyad Rahwan,et al.  Laying the foundations for a World Wide Argument Web , 2007, Artif. Intell..

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

[15]  Sanjay Modgil,et al.  Proof Theories and Algorithms for Abstract Argumentation Frameworks , 2009, Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence.

[16]  Martin Caminada.  An Algorithm for Computing Semi-stable Semantics , 2007, ECSQARU.

[17]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Argument-Based Extended Logic Programming with Defeasible Priorities , 1997, J. Appl. Non Class. Logics.

[18]  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..

[19]  W. Carnielli,et al.  Logics of Formal Inconsistency , 2007 .

[20]  Arnon Avron,et al.  The Value of the Four Values , 1998, Artif. Intell..

[21]  J. Pollock.  Cognitive Carpentry: A Blueprint for How to Build a Person , 1995 .

[22]  Iyad Rahwan,et al.  Collective argument evaluation as judgement aggregation , 2010, AAMAS.