argumentation has emerged as a method for non-monotonic reasoning that has gained popularity 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 formal logics perspective; an analysis that is based on models of economically rational decision-making does not exist. In this paper, we work towards addressing this issue by analysing 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 this property. 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 seminal paper, as well as other semantics we evaluate, with the exception of naive semantics and the SCC-recursive CF2 semantics, violate 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

论证已成为一种非单调推理的方法，在符号人工智能社区中广受欢迎。在文献中，多年来改进的抽象论证的不同方法通常从形式逻辑的角度进行评估。不存在基于经济理性决策模型的分析。在本文中，我们从微观经济理论中理性人范式的角度分析抽象论证，努力解决这个问题。评估在哪些条件下可以认为基于论证的抽象决策在经济上是合理的，我们从经济理性的形式模型中将参考独立性作为非单调推理属性推导出来，并创建了一个新的论证原则，以确保符合该属性。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 的开创性论文中提出的论证语义，以及我们评估的其他语义，除了朴素语义和 SCC 递归 CF2 语义，违反了引用独立原则。因此，我们研究了论证框架的结构属性如何影响参考独立性原则，并将循环扩展（偶数和奇数循环）确定为问题的根源。最后，