Comparing Argumentation Semantics with Respect to Skepticism
نویسندگان
چکیده
The issue of formalizing skepticism relations between argumentation semantics has been considered only recently in the literature. In this paper, we contribute to this kind of analysis by providing a systematic comparison of a significant set of literature semantics (namely grounded, complete, preferred, stable, semi-stable, ideal, prudent, and CF2 semantics) using both a weak and a strong skepticism relation.
منابع مشابه
Evaluating 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 کاملTowards a Formalization of Skepticism in Extension-based Argumentation Semantics
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 releva...
متن کاملOn 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 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 کاملA 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 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 2007