Towards a Formalization of Skepticism in Extension-based Argumentation Semantics
نویسندگان
چکیده
This paper provides a preliminary investigation towards the definition of a general framework for the comparison of extension-based argumentation semantics with respect to the notion of skepticism. We identify seven justification states for arguments and define two alternative skepticism relations between semantics, which induce a partial order on the justification states, reflecting the relevant levels of commitment.
منابع مشابه
On principle-based evaluation of extension-based argumentation semantics
The increasing variety of semantics proposed in the context of Dung’s theory of argumentation makes more and more inadequate the example-based approach commonly adopted for evaluating and comparing different semantics. To fill this gap, this paper provides two main contributions. First, a set of general criteria for semantics evaluation is introduced by proposing a formal counterpart to several...
متن کاملEvaluating Argumentation Semantics with Respect to Skepticism Adequacy
Analyzing argumentation semantics with respect to the notion of skepticism is an important issue for developing general and wellfounded comparisons among existing approaches. In this paper, we show that the notion of skepticism plays also a significant role in order to better understand the behavior of a specific semantics in different situations. Building on an articulated classification of ar...
متن کاملAn introduction to argumentation semantics
This paper presents an overview on the state of the art of semantics for abstract argumentation, covering both some of the most influential literature proposals and some general issues concerning semantics definition and evaluation. As to the former point the paper reviews Dung’s original notions of complete, grounded, preferred, and stable semantics, as well as subsequently proposed notions li...
متن کاملInductive Defense for Sceptical Semantics of Extended Argumentation
An abstract argumentation framework may have many extensions. Which extension should be adopted as the semantics depends on the sceptical attitudes of the reasoners. Different degrees of scepticism lead to different semantics ranging from the grounded extension as the most sceptical semantics to preferred extensions as the least sceptical semantics. Extending abstract argumentation to allow att...
متن کاملA General QBF-based Formalization of abstract Argumentation Theory
We introduce a unified logical approach, based on signed theories and Quantified Boolean Formulas (QBFs), that can serve as a basis for representing and reasoning with various argumentation-based decision problems. By this, we are able to represent, in a uniform and simple way, a wide range of extension-based semantics for argumentation theory, including complete, grounded, preferred, semistabl...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
عنوان ژورنال:
دوره شماره
صفحات -
تاریخ انتشار 2004