Defining Argumentation Semantics under a Claim-centric View

Abstract

Claim-augmented argumentation frameworks (CAFs) constitute a generic formalism for conflict resolution of conclusion-oriented prob­lems in argumentation. CAFs extend Dung argumentation frameworks (AFs) by assigning a claim to each argument; so far, semantics for CAFs have been defined by considering the semantics for AFs and interpret­ing the extensions in terms of the claims of the arguments. However, certain semantics of the originally considered problem which involve maximization of the range on conclusion-level cannot be captured by performing maximization on argument-level. In this paper, we pro­pose therefore an alternative way of defining range-based semantics for CAFs in order to mimic the behavior of the respective semantics of the original problems; we investigate the relation of the newly introduced semantics to their argument-level based counterparts.