Algorithms for Argumentation Semantics: Labeling Attacks as a Generalization of Labeling Arguments

A Dung argumentation framework (AF) is a pair (A,R): A is a set of abstract arguments and R ⊆ A×A is a binary relation, so-called the attack relation, for capturing the conflicting arguments. Labeling based algorithms for enumerating extensions (i.e. sets of acceptable arguments) have been set out s...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:The Journal of artificial intelligence research 2014-01, Vol.49, p.635-668
Main Authors: Nofal, S., Atkinson, K., Dunne, P. E.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Algorithms
Artificial intelligence
Dung
Labeling
Semantics
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:A Dung argumentation framework (AF) is a pair (A,R): A is a set of abstract arguments and R ⊆ A×A is a binary relation, so-called the attack relation, for capturing the conflicting arguments. Labeling based algorithms for enumerating extensions (i.e. sets of acceptable arguments) have been set out such that arguments (i.e. elements of A) are the only subject for labeling. In this paper we present implemented algorithms for listing extensions by labeling attacks (i.e. elements of R) along with arguments. Specifically, these algorithms are concerned with enumerating all extensions of an AF under a number of argumentation semantics: preferred, stable, complete, semi stable, stage, ideal and grounded. Our algorithms have impact, in particular, on enumerating extensions of AF-extended models that allow attacks on attacks. To demonstrate this impact, we instantiate our algorithms for an example of such models: namely argumentation frameworks with recursive attacks (AFRA), thereby we end up with unified algorithms that enumerate extensions of any AF/AFRA.
ISSN:1076-9757
1076-9757
1943-5037
DOI:10.1613/jair.4308