Equivalence in Logic-Based Argumentation

Abstract : This paper investigates when two abstract logic-based argumentation systems are equivalent. It defines various equivalence criteria, investigates the links between them, and identifies cases where two systems are equivalent with respect to each of the proposed criteria. In particular, it shows that under some reasonable conditions on the logic underlying an argumentation system, the latter has an equivalent finite subsystem, called core. This core constitutes a threshold under which arguments of the system have not yet attained their final status and consequently adding a new argument may result in status change. From that threshold, the statuses of all arguments become stable.
Complete list of metadatas

https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01123719
Contributor : Open Archive Toulouse Archive Ouverte (oatao) <>
Submitted on : Thursday, March 5, 2015 - 1:06:09 PM
Last modification on : Friday, January 10, 2020 - 9:09:18 PM
Long-term archiving on: Saturday, June 6, 2015 - 10:40:51 AM

File

Amgoud_13082.pdf
Files produced by the author(s)

Identifiers

Citation

Leila Amgoud, Philippe Besnard, Srdjan Vesic. Equivalence in Logic-Based Argumentation. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics, Editions Hermes, 2014, vol. 24 (n° 3), pp. 181-208. ⟨10.1080/11663081.2014.959332⟩. ⟨hal-01123719⟩

Share

Metrics

Record views

242

Files downloads

352