Abstract argumentation has emerged as a method for non-monotonic reasoning that has gained tremendous traction in the symbolic artificial intelligence community. In the literature, the different approaches to abstract argumentation that were refined over the years are typically evaluated from a logics perspective; an analysis that is based on models of ideal, rational decision-making does not exist. In this paper, we work towards addressing this issue by analyzing abstract argumentation from the perspective of the rational man paradigm in microeconomic theory. To assess under which conditions abstract argumentation-based decision-making can be considered economically rational, we derive reference independence as a non-monotonic inference property from a formal model of economic rationality and create a new argumentation principle that ensures compliance with these properties. We then compare the reference independence principle with other reasoning principles, in particular with cautious monotony and rational monotony. We show that the argumentation semantics as proposed in Dung's classical paper, as well as other semantics we evaluate--with the exception of the SCC-recursive CF2 semantics--do not comply with the reference independence principle. Consequently, we investigate how structural properties of argumentation frameworks impact the reference independence principle, and identify cyclic expansions (both even and odd cycles) as the root of the problem. Finally, we put reference independence into the context of preference-based argumentation and show that for this argumentation variant, which explicitly models preferences, reference independence cannot be ensured in a straight-forward manner.

中文翻译：

---

抽象论证与理性人

摘要论证已成为一种非单调推理方法，在符号人工智能社区中获得了巨大的吸引力。在文献中，多年来精炼的抽象论证的不同方法通常是从逻辑的角度进行评估的；不存在基于理想、理性决策模型的分析。在本文中，我们通过从微观经济学理论中理性人范式的角度分析抽象论证来解决这个问题。评估在哪些条件下基于抽象论证的决策可以被认为是经济合理的，我们从经济理性的形式模型中将参考独立性推导出为非单调推理属性，并创建了一个新的论证原则，以确保符合这些属性。然后我们将参考独立原则与其他推理原则进行比较，特别是谨慎单调和理性单调。我们表明 Dung 的经典论文中提出的论证语义，以及我们评估的其他语义——除了 SCC 递归 CF2 语义——不符合引用独立原则。因此，我们研究论证框架的结构特性如何影响参考独立原则，并将循环扩展（偶数和奇数循环）确定为问题的根源。最后，