On principle-based evaluation of extension-based argumentation semantics
Artificial Intelligence
Mechanism design for abstract argumentation
Proceedings of the 7th international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems - Volume 2
Proceedings of the 2006 conference on Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2006
On the issue of reinstatement in argumentation
JELIA'06 Proceedings of the 10th European conference on Logics in Artificial Intelligence
Weighted argument systems: Basic definitions, algorithms, and complexity results
Artificial Intelligence
On judgment aggregation in abstract argumentation
Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems
On the outcomes of multiparty persuasion
The 10th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems - Volume 1
Practical argumentation semantics for socially efficient defeasible consequence
The 10th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems - Volume 1
Review: an introduction to argumentation semantics
The Knowledge Engineering Review
Assumption-based argumentation for the minimal concession strategy
ArgMAS'09 Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems
Toward justifying actions with logically and socially acceptable reasons
MICAI'11 Proceedings of the 10th Mexican international conference on Advances in Artificial Intelligence - Volume Part I
Practical argumentation semantics for pareto optimality and its relationships with values
ArgMAS'11 Proceedings of the 8th international conference on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems
On the outcomes of multiparty persuasion
ArgMAS'11 Proceedings of the 8th international conference on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems
| Hi-index | 0.00 |
Since its introduction in the mid-nineties, Dung's theory of abstract argumentation frameworks has been influential in artificial intelligence. Dung viewed arguments as abstract entities with a binary defeat relation among them. This enabled extensive analysis of different (semantic) argument acceptance criteria. However, little attention was given to comparing such criteria in relation to the preferences of self-interested agents who may have conflicting preferences over the final status of arguments. In this paper, we define a number of agent preference relations over argumentation outcomes. We then analyse different argument evaluation rules taking into account the preferences of individual agents. Our framework and results inform the mediator (e.g. judge) to decide which argument evaluation rule (i.e. semantics) to use given the type of agent population involved.