Defense semantics of argumentation: encoding reasons for accepting arguments
This work addresses foundational issues in computational argumentation theory, offering incremental advancements in formalizing argument acceptance.
The paper tackles the problem of encoding reasons for accepting arguments in abstract argumentation by introducing defense semantics and defense graphs, resulting in new notions of defense equivalence and root equivalence for argument graphs.
In this paper we show how the defense relation among abstract arguments can be used to encode the reasons for accepting arguments. After introducing a novel notion of defenses and defense graphs, we propose a defense semantics together with a new notion of defense equivalence of argument graphs, and compare defense equivalence with standard equivalence and strong equivalence, respectively. Then, based on defense semantics, we define two kinds of reasons for accepting arguments, i.e., direct reasons and root reasons, and a notion of root equivalence of argument graphs. Finally, we show how the notion of root equivalence can be used in argumentation summarization.