Equivalence in Argumentation Frameworks with a Claim-Centric View – Classical Results with Novel Ingredients

Ringo Baumann, Anna Rapberger, Markus Ulbricht

[AAAI-22] Main Track
Abstract: A 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.

Introduction Video

Sessions where this paper appears

  • Poster Session 3

    Blue 5

  • Poster Session 7

    Blue 5

  • Oral Session 7

    Blue 5