# Verifiability of Argumentation Semantics

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/1603.09502 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/1603.09502/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- First posted on arXiv 31 Mar 2016.

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [Revisiting initial sets in abstract argumentation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2204.09985/) (2022)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Dung's abstract argumentation theory is a widely used formalism to model conflicting information and to draw conclusions in such situations. Hereby, the knowledge is represented by so-called argumentation frameworks (AFs) and the reasoning is done via semantics extracting acceptable sets. All reasonable semantics are based on the notion of conflict-freeness which means that arguments are only jointly acceptable when they are not linked within the AF. In this paper, we study the question which information on top of conflict-free sets is needed to compute extensions of a semantics at hand. We introduce a hierarchy of so-called verification classes specifying the required amount of information. We show that well-known standard semantics are exactly verifiable through a certain such class. Our framework also gives a means to study semantics lying inbetween known semantics, thus contributing to a more abstract understanding of the different features argumentation semantics offer.