Generalizing naive and stable semantics in argumentation frameworks with necessities and preferences

Abstract

In [4] [5], the classical acceptability semantics are generalized by preferences. The extensions under a given semantics correspond to maximal elements of a relation encoding this semantics and defined on subsets of arguments. Furthermore, a set of postulates is proposed to provide a full characterization of any relation encoding the generalized stable semantics. In this paper, we adapt this approach to preference-based argumentation frameworks with necessities. We propose a full characterization of stable and naive semantics in this new context by new sets of adapted postulates and we present a practical method to compute them by using a classical Dung argumentation framework. © 2012 Springer-Verlag.