Equivalence in Argumentation Frameworks with a Claim-Centric View – Classical Results with Novel Ingredients
Keywords:Knowledge Representation And Reasoning (KRR)
AbstractA common feature of non-monotonic logics is that the classical notion of equivalence does not preserve the intended meaning in light of additional information. Consequently, the term strong equivalence was coined in the literature and thoroughly investigated. In the present paper, the knowledge representation formalism under consideration are claim-augmented argumentation frameworks (CAFs) which provide a formal basis to analyze conclusion-oriented problems in argumentation by adapting a claim-focused perspective. CAFs extend Dung AFs by associating a claim to each argument representing its conclusion. In this paper, we investigate both ordinary and strong equivalence in CAFs. Thereby, we take the fact into account that one might either be interested in the actual arguments or their claims only. The former point of view naturally yields an extension of strong equivalence for AFs to the claim-based setting while the latter gives rise to a novel equivalence notion which is genuine for CAFs. We tailor, examine and compare these notions and obtain a comprehensive study of this matter for CAFs. We conclude by investigating the computational complexity of naturally arising decision problems.
How to Cite
Baumann, R., Rapberger, A., & Ulbricht, M. (2022). Equivalence in Argumentation Frameworks with a Claim-Centric View – Classical Results with Novel Ingredients. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 36(5), 5479-5486. https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v36i5.20486
AAAI Technical Track on Knowledge Representation and Reasoning