Evaluation and comparison criteria for extension-based argumentation semantics

Authors:
Pietro Baroni;Massimiliano Giacomin
Affiliations:
Dip. Elettronica per l'Automazione, Univ. of Brescia, Italy;Dip. Elettronica per l'Automazione, Univ. of Brescia, Italy
Venue:
Proceedings of the 2006 conference on Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2006
Year:
2006

Citing 7
Cited 6

Floating conclusions and zombie paths: two deep difficulties in the “directly skeptical” approach to defeasible inheritance nets

Artificial Intelligence
How to reason defeasibly

Artificial Intelligence
On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games

Artificial Intelligence
Skepticism and floating conclusions

Artificial Intelligence
Defeasible reasoning with variable degrees of justification

Artificial Intelligence
Prudent Semantics for Argumentation Frameworks

ICTAI '05 Proceedings of the 17th IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence
SCC-recursiveness: a general schema for argumentation semantics

Artificial Intelligence

Comparing Argumentation Semantics with Respect to Skepticism

ECSQARU '07 Proceedings of the 9th European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty
Skepticism relations for comparing argumentation semantics

International Journal of Approximate Reasoning
Strong and Weak Forms of Abstract Argument Defense

Proceedings of the 2008 conference on Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2008
On defense strength of blocking defeaters in admissible sets

KSEM'07 Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on Knowledge science, engineering and management
Expanding Argumentation Frameworks: Enforcing and Monotonicity Results

Proceedings of the 2010 conference on Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2010
Splitting an argumentation framework

LPNMR'11 Proceedings of the 11th international conference on Logic programming and nonmonotonic reasoning

Quantified Score

Hi-index	0.01

Visualization

Abstract

In the context of Dung's theory of abstract argumentation frameworks, the comparison between different semantics is often carried out by resorting to some specific examples considered particularly meaningful. This kind of comparison needs to be complemented by more general evaluation criteria based on “example-independent” basic principles. We review several principles for argumentation semantics, identify their formal counterpart in terms of extensions, and analyze their relationships with the notion of argument justification state. Then, we evaluate and compare several semantics on the basis of the introduced principles.