客座专栏:抽象论证框架中验证的复杂性

Dorothea Baumeister
{"title":"客座专栏:抽象论证框架中验证的复杂性","authors":"Dorothea Baumeister","doi":"10.1145/3173127.3173137","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract argumentation frameworks introduced by Dung [Dun95] are a formal way of representing discussions de ned through arguments and a binary attack relation between them. In dynamic settings there is a need to allow for uncertainty in such argumentation frameworks, hence attack-incomplete and argument-incomplete argumentation frameworks are considered as well. Different semantics are de ned in order to identify a set of acceptable arguments, and the verification problem asks whether some given set is an extension for a given semantics. This survey gives an overview of the complexity of the verification problem for different semantics in complete and incomplete argumentation frameworks.","PeriodicalId":22106,"journal":{"name":"SIGACT News","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-12-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Guest Column: Complexity of Verication in Abstract Argumentation Frameworks\",\"authors\":\"Dorothea Baumeister\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/3173127.3173137\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract argumentation frameworks introduced by Dung [Dun95] are a formal way of representing discussions de ned through arguments and a binary attack relation between them. In dynamic settings there is a need to allow for uncertainty in such argumentation frameworks, hence attack-incomplete and argument-incomplete argumentation frameworks are considered as well. Different semantics are de ned in order to identify a set of acceptable arguments, and the verification problem asks whether some given set is an extension for a given semantics. This survey gives an overview of the complexity of the verification problem for different semantics in complete and incomplete argumentation frameworks.\",\"PeriodicalId\":22106,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"SIGACT News\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-12-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"SIGACT News\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/3173127.3173137\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"SIGACT News","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3173127.3173137","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

Dung [Dun95]引入的抽象论证框架是一种表示通过论证和它们之间的二元攻击关系来进行讨论的形式化方式。在动态环境中,需要允许这种论证框架中的不确定性,因此也考虑了攻击-不完整和论证-不完整论证框架。为了识别一组可接受的参数,需要设计不同的语义,验证问题询问某个给定的集合是否是给定语义的扩展。本文概述了完整和不完整论证框架中不同语义验证问题的复杂性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Guest Column: Complexity of Verication in Abstract Argumentation Frameworks
Abstract argumentation frameworks introduced by Dung [Dun95] are a formal way of representing discussions de ned through arguments and a binary attack relation between them. In dynamic settings there is a need to allow for uncertainty in such argumentation frameworks, hence attack-incomplete and argument-incomplete argumentation frameworks are considered as well. Different semantics are de ned in order to identify a set of acceptable arguments, and the verification problem asks whether some given set is an extension for a given semantics. This survey gives an overview of the complexity of the verification problem for different semantics in complete and incomplete argumentation frameworks.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信