Abstract
Classical logic argumentation (Cl-Arg) under the
stable semantics yields argumentative characterisations
of non-monotonic inference in Preferred Subtheories.
This paper studies these characterisations
under both the standard approach to Cl-Arg, and a
recent dialectical approach that is provably rational
under resource bounds. Two key contributions are
made. Firstly, the preferred extensions are shown
to coincide with the stable extensions. This means
that algorithms and proof theories for the admissible
semantics can now be used to decide credulous
inference in Preferred Subtheories. Secondly, we
show that as compared with the standard approach,
the grounded semantics applied to the dialectical
approach more closely approximates sceptical inference
in Preferred Subtheories.
Keywords
- Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Non-monotonic Reasoning
- Agent-based and Multi-agent Systems: Agreement Technologies: Argumentation
- Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Computational Models of Argument
