Stable semantics in logic-based argumentation

Authors:
Leila Amgoud
Affiliations:
IRIT --- CNRS, Toulouse, France
Venue:
SUM'12 Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Scalable Uncertainty Management
Year:
2012

Citing 10
Cited 1

How to reason defeasibly

Artificial Intelligence
On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games

Artificial Intelligence
A logic-based theory of deductive arguments

Artificial Intelligence
Acceptability of arguments as `logical uncertainty'

ECSQARU '93 Proceedings of the European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning and Uncertainty
Defeasible logic programming: an argumentative approach

Theory and Practice of Logic Programming
On the evaluation of argumentation formalisms

Artificial Intelligence
Bridging the Gap between Abstract Argumentation Systems and Logic

SUM '09 Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Scalable Uncertainty Management
On the relation between argumentation and non-monotonic coherence based entailment

IJCAI'95 Proceedings of the 14th international joint conference on Artificial intelligence - Volume 2
A formal analysis of logic-based argumentation systems

SUM'10 Proceedings of the 4th international conference on Scalable uncertainty management
Instantiating abstract argumentation with classical logic arguments: Postulates and properties

Artificial Intelligence

The outcomes of logic-based argumentation systems under preferred semantics

SUM'12 Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Scalable Uncertainty Management

Quantified Score

Hi-index	0.00

Visualization

Abstract

This paper investigates the outputs of abstract logic-based argumentation systems under stable semantics. We delimit the number of stable extensions a system may have. We show that in the best case, an argumentation system infers exactly the common conclusions drawn from the maximal consistent subbases of the original knowledge base. This output corresponds to that returned by a system under the naive semantics. In the worst case, counter-intuitive results are returned. In the intermediary case, the system forgets intuitive conclusions. These two latter cases are due to the use of skewed attack relations. The results show that stable semantics is either useless or unsuitable in logic-based argumentation systems. Finally, we show that under this semantics, argumentation systems may inherit the problems of coherence-based approaches.