Skepticism relations for comparing argumentation semantics
نویسندگان
چکیده
منابع مشابه
Comparing Argumentation Semantics with Respect to Skepticism
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 skep...
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 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 کاملComparing the Expressiveness of Argumentation Semantics
Understanding the expressiveness of a formalism is undoubtedly an important part of understanding its possibilities and limitations. Translations between different formalisms have proven to be valuable tools for understanding this very expressiveness. In this work we complement recent investigations of the intertranslatability of argumentation semantics for Dung’s abstract argumentation framewo...
متن کاملSemantics for Evidence-Based Argumentation
The identification of consistent sets of arguments is one of the most important concerns in the development of computational models of argument. Such extensions drive the defeasible reasoning process. In this paper we present a novel framework that offers a semantics for argumentation-based reasoning grounded in an intuitive notion of evidence. In building this model of evidence-based argumenta...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
ژورنال
عنوان ژورنال: International Journal of Approximate Reasoning
سال: 2009
ISSN: 0888-613X
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijar.2009.02.006