[en] An important approach to abstract argumentation is the labeling-based approach, in which one makes use of labelings that assign to each argument one of three labels: in, out or und. In this paper, we address the question, which of the twenty-seven functions from the set of labels to the set of labels can be represented by an argumentation framework. We prove that in preferred, complete and grounded semantics, eleven labeling functions can be represented in this way while sixteen labeling functions cannot be represented by any argumentation framework. We show how this analysis of labeling functions can be applied to prove an impossibility result: Argumentation frameworks extended with a certain kind of weak attack relation cannot be flattened to the standard Dung argumentation frameworks.
Disciplines :
Computer science
Author, co-author :
Cramer, Marcos; TU Dresden
DAUPHIN, Jérémie ; University of Luxembourg > Faculty of Science, Technology and Communication (FSTC) > Computer Science and Communications Research Unit (CSC)