Ranking-Based Semantics for Argumentation Frameworks
نویسندگان
چکیده
An argumentation system consists of a set of interacting arguments and a semantics for evaluating them. This paper proposes a new family of semantics which rank-orders arguments from the most acceptable to the weakest one(s). The new semantics enjoy two other main features: i) an attack weakens its target but does not kill it, ii) the number of attackers has a great impact on the acceptability of an argument. We start by proposing a set of rational postulates that such semantics could satisfy, then construct various semantics that enjoy them.
منابع مشابه
Are 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 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 کاملUsing Matrix Exponentials for Abstract Argumentation
We investigate the relationship between semantics for formal argumentation and measures from social networking theory. In particular, we consider using matrix exponentials, which are measures used for link prediction and recommendation in social networks, as a way to measure acceptability of arguments in abstract argumentation frameworks. We reformulate the approach of matrix exponentials to ad...
متن کاملPreferential model and argumentation semantics
Although the preferential model semantics is the standard semantics for non-monotonic reasoning systems, it is not used for argumentation frameworks. For argumentation frameworks, instead, argumentation semantics are used. This paper studies the relation between the two types of semantics. Several argumentation semantics are related to additional constraints on the preference relation over stat...
متن کاملReasoning about Preferences in Structured Extended Argumentation Frameworks
This paper combines two recent extensions of Dung’s abstract argumentation frameworks in order to define an abstract formalism for reasoning about preferences in structured argumentation frameworks. First, extended argumentation frameworks extend Dung frameworks with attacks on attacks, thus providing an abstract dialectical semantics that accommodates argumentation-based reasoning about prefer...
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 2013