Fuzzy Labeling for Abstract Argumentation: An Empirical Evaluation
نویسندگان
چکیده
Argumentation frameworks have to be evaluated with respect to argumentation semantics to compute the set(s) of accepted arguments. In a previous approach, we proposed a fuzzy labeling algorithm for computing the (fuzzy) set of acceptable arguments, when the sources of the arguments in the argumentation framework are only partially trusted. The convergence of the algorithm was proved, and the convergence speed was estimated to be linear, as it is generally the case with iterative methods. In this paper, we provide an experimental validation of this algorithm with the aim of carrying out an empirical evaluation of its performance on a benchmark of argumentation graphs. Results show the satisfactory performance of our algorithm, even on complex graph structures as those present in our benchmark.
منابع مشابه
An SCC Recursive Meta-Algorithm for Computing Preferred Labellings in Abstract Argumentation
This paper presents a meta-algorithm for the computation of preferred labellings, based on the general recursive schema for argumentation semantics called SCC-Recursiveness. The idea is to recursively decompose a framework so as to compute semantics labellings on restricted sub-frameworks, in order to reduce the computational effort. The meta-algorithm can be instantiated with a specific “base ...
متن کاملA SCC Recursive Meta-Algorithm for Computing Preferred Labellings in Abstract Argumentation
This paper presents a meta-algorithm for the computation of preferred labellings, based on the general recursive schema for argumentation semantics called SCC-Recursiveness. The idea is to recursively decompose a framework so as to compute semantics labellings on restricted sub-frameworks, in order to reduce the computational effort. The meta-algorithm can be instantiated with a specific “base ...
متن کاملArgumentation Theory in the Field: An Empirical Study of Fundamental Notions
Argumentation Theory provides a very powerful set of principles, ideas and models. Yet, in this paper we will show that its fundamental principles unsatisfactorily explain real-world human argumentation, and should be adapted. We will present an extensive empirical study on the incompatibility of abstract argumentation and human argumentative behavior, followed by practical expansion of existin...
متن کاملAlgorithms for Argumentation Semantics: Labeling Attacks as a Generalization of Labeling Arguments
A Dung argumentation framework (AF) is a pair (A,R): A is a set of abstract arguments and R ⊆ A× A is a binary relation, so-called the attack relation, for capturing the conflicting arguments. “Labeling” based algorithms for enumerating extensions (i.e. sets of acceptable arguments) have been set out such that arguments (i.e. elements of A) are the only subject for labeling. In this paper we pr...
متن کاملA Formal Concept View of Abstract Argumentation
The paper presents a parallel between two important theories for the treatment of information which address questions that are apparently unrelated and that are studied by different research communities: an enriched view of formal concept analysis and abstract argumentation. Both theories exploit a binary relation (expressing object-property links, attacks between arguments). We show that when ...
متن کامل