Abschlussarbeit

Abstract

Inconsistency measurements in abstract argument graphs are concerned with quantifying the inconsistency that exists in graphs which represent the relationships between arguments. To evaluate the properties of inconsistency measurements various approaches have been proposed including the examination of compliance with rationality postulates, the analysis of their expressivity characteristics, the calculation of their computational complexities as well as descriptive evaluations. The aim of this Bachelor thesis is, to present a comprehensive overview of the current state of inconsistency measures in abstract argument graphs, while offering a deeper, previously unexplored perspective through an investigation of their characteristics along the dimension of rationality postulates and descriptive evaluations. To achieve this, the necessary preliminaries are presented, followed by a thorough analysis and a detailed breakdown of each inconsistency measure, highlighting its strengths and weaknesses. Afterwards, 18 rationality postulates for abstract argument graphs, 6 of which are newly formulated, while building upon established concepts in classical logic, are examined. Finally, we check for compliance of the inconsistency measures with the rationality postulates and discuss those findings. Even though results vary based on the focus of the inconsistency measures, the Distance-based Measure stands out as a very finegranular measure.