The study of extension-based semantics within the seminal abstract argumentation model of Dung has largely focused on definitional, algorithmic and complexity issues. In contrast, matters relating to comparisons of representational limits, in particular, the extent to which given collections of extensions are expressible within the formalism, have been under-developed. As such, little is known concerning conditions under which a candidate set of subsets of arguments are "realistic" in the sense that they correspond to the extensions of some argumentation framework af for a semantics of interest. In this paper we present a formal basis for examining extension-based semantics in terms of the sets of extensions that these may express within a single af. We provide a number of characterization theorems which guarantee the existence of afs whose set of extensions satisfy specific conditions and derive complexity results for decision problems that require such characterizations.
['Paul E. Dunne', 'Wolfgang Dvořák', 'Thomas Linsbichler', 'Stefan Woltran']
Characteristics of multiple viewpoints in abstract argumentation