Abstract
We introduce a unified logical theory, based on signed theories and Quantified Boolean Formulas (QBFs) that can serve as the basis for representing and computing various argumentation-based decision problems. It is shown that within our framework we are able to model, in a simple and modular way, a wide range of semantics for abstract argumentation theory. This includes complete, grounded, preferred, stable, semi-stable, stage, ideal and eager semantics. Further more, our approach is purely logical, making for instance decision problems like skeptical and credulous acceptance of arguments simply a matter of entailment and satisfiability checking. The latter may be verified by off-the-shelf QBF-solvers.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 229-252 |
Number of pages | 24 |
Journal | Journal of Applied Logic |
Volume | 11 |
Issue number | 2 |
Early online date | 21 Mar 2013 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - Jun 2013 |
Bibliographical note
Supported by the National Research Fund, Luxembourg (LAAMI project) and by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC, UK), grant ref. EP/J012084/1 (SAsSY project).Keywords
- semantics for abstract argumentation
- frameworks
- quantified Boolean formulas
- signed theories