A Comparative Study of Ranking-based Semantics for Abstract Argumentation
ثبت نشده
چکیده
Argumentation is a process of evaluating and comparing a set of arguments. A way to compare them consists in using a ranking-based semantics which rank-order arguments from the most to the least acceptable ones. Recently, a number of such semantics have been proposed independently, often associated with some desirable properties. However, there is no comparative study which takes a broader perspective. This is what we propose in this work. We provide a general comparison of all these semantics with respect to the proposed properties. That allows to underline the differences of behavior between the existing semantics.
منابع مشابه
A Comparative Study of Ranking-Based Semantics for Abstract Argumentation
Argumentation is a process of evaluating and comparing a set of arguments. A way to compare them consists in using a ranking-based semantics which rank-order arguments from the most to the least acceptable ones. Recently, a number of such semantics have been proposed independently, often associated with some desirable properties. However, there is no comparative study which takes a broader pers...
متن کاملA Plausibility Semantics for Abstract Argumentation Frameworks
We propose and investigate a simple plausibility-based extension semantics for abstract argumentation frameworks based on generic instantiations by default knowledge bases and the ranking construction paradigm for default reasoning.
متن کاملAre Ranking Semantics Sensitive to the Notion of Core?
In this paper, we study the impact of two notions of core on the output of ranking semantics in logical argumentation frameworks. We consider the existential rules fragment, a language widely used in Semantic Web and Ontology Based Data Access applications. Using burden semantics as example we show how some ranking semantics yield different outputs on the argumentation graph and its cores. We e...
متن کاملOn the Difference between Assumption-based Argumentation and Abstract Argumentation
In the current paper, we re-examine the connection between abstract argumentation and assumption-based argumentation. These two formalisms are often claimed to be equivalent in the sense that (a) evaluating an assumption based argumentation framework directly with the dedicated semantics, and (b) first constructing the corresponding abstract argumentation framework and then applying the corresp...
متن کاملInitial Sets in Abstract Argumentation Frameworks
Dung’s abstract argumentation provides us with a general framework to deal with argumentation, non-monotonic reasoning and logic programming. For the extensionbased semantics, one of the basic principles is Imaximality which is in particular related with the notion of skeptical justification. Another one is directionality which can be employed for the study of dynamics of argumentation. In this...
متن کامل