article

On principle-based evaluation of extension-based argumentation semantics

Authors:

Massimiliano GiacominAuthors Info & Claims

Artificial Intelligence, Volume 171, Issue 10-15

Pages 675 - 700

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2007.04.004

Published: 01 July 2007 Publication History

Abstract

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 intuitive notions related to the concepts of maximality, defense, directionality, and skepticism. Then, the proposed criteria are applied in a systematic way to a representative set of argumentation semantics available in the literature, namely grounded, complete, preferred, stable, semi-stable, ideal, prudent, and CF2 semantics.

References

[1]

Amgoud, L. and Cayrol, C., A reasoning model based on the production of acceptable arguments. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence. v34 i1--3. 197-215.

Digital Library

[2]

Baroni, P. and Giacomin, M., Solving semantic problems with odd-length cycles in argumentation. In: Lecture Notes Artif. Intell., vol. 2711. Springer-Verlag, Aalborg, Denmark. pp. 440-451.

[3]

P. Baroni, M. Giacomin, Evaluating argumentation semantics with respect to skepticism adequacy, in: Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty (ECSQARU 2005), Barcelona, 2005, pp. 329--340

Digital Library

[4]

P. Baroni, M. Giacomin, On principle-based evaluation, comparison, and design of extension-based argumentation semantics, Technical report, University of Brescia, Italy, 2007

[5]

P. Baroni, M. Giacomin, G. Guida, Towards a formalization of skepticism in extension-based argumentation semantics, in: Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument (CMNA 2004), Valencia, Spain, 2004, pp. 47--52

[6]

Baroni, P., Giacomin, M. and Guida, G., SCC-recursiveness: a general schema for argumentation semantics. Artificial Intelligence. v168 i1--2. 165-210.

Digital Library

[7]

Bench-Capon, T.J.M., Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation. v13 i3. 429-448.

[8]

M. Caminada, For the sake of the argument; explorations into argument-based reasoning, PhD thesis, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, 2004

[9]

Caminada, M., Semi-stable semantics. In: Dunne, P.E., Bench-Capon, T. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Computational Models of Arguments (COMMA 2006), IOS Press, Liverpool, UK. pp. 121-130.

Digital Library

[10]

Caminada, M., On the issue of reinstatement in argumentation. In: Proceedings of the 10th European Conference on Logics in Artificial Intelligence (JELIA 06), Springer, Liverpool, UK. pp. 111-123.

Digital Library

[11]

Caminada, M. and Amgoud, L., An axiomatic account of formal argumentation. In: Proceedings of the Twentieth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-05), American Association for Artificial Intelligence, AAAI Press, Menlo Park, CA. pp. 608-613.

Digital Library

[12]

Coste-Marquis, S., Devred, C. and Marquis, P., Prudent semantics for argumentation frameworks. In: Proceedings of the 17th IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence (ICTAI 2005), IEEE Computer Society, Hong Kong, China. pp. 568-572.

Digital Library

[13]

S. Coste-Marquis, C. Devred, P. Marquis, Sémantiques prudentes pour les systèmes d'argumentation, in: Proceedings of the 15th Congress AFRIF-AFIA Reconnaissance des Formes et Intelligence Artificielle (RFIA 2006), Tours, F, 2006

[14]

Dung, P.M., On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming, and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence. v77 i2. 321-357.

Digital Library

[15]

Dung, P.M., Mancarella, P. and Toni, F., A dialectic procedure for sceptical, assumption-based argumentation. In: Dunne, P.E., Bench-Capon, T. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Computational Models of Arguments (COMMA 2006), IOS Press, Liverpool, UK. pp. 145-156.

Digital Library

[16]

Horty, J.F., Skepticism and floating conclusions. Artificial Intelligence. v135 i1--2. 55-72.

Digital Library

[17]

Jakobovits, H. and Vermeir, D., Robust semantics for argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation. v9 i2. 215-261.

[18]

Modgil, S., Hierarchical argumentation. In: Proceedings of the 10th European Conference on Logics in Artificial Intelligence (JELIA 06), Springer, Liverpool, UK. pp. 319-332.

[19]

Pollock, J.L., How to reason defeasibly. Artificial Intelligence. v57 i1. 1-42.

Digital Library

[20]

H. Prakken, Intuitions and the modelling of defeasible reasoning: some case studies, in: Proceedings of the 9th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning (NMR 2002), Toulouse, France, 2002, pp. 91--102

[21]

Prakken, H., Combining sceptical epistemic reasoning with credulous practical reasoning. In: Dunne, P.E., Bench-Capon, T. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Computational Models of Arguments (COMMA 2006), IOS Press, Liverpool, UK. pp. 311-322.

Digital Library

[22]

Prakken, H. and Vreeswijk, G.A.W., Logics for defeasible argumentation. In: Gabbay, D.M., Guenthner, F. (Eds.), Handbook of Philosophical Logic, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.

[23]

Reiter, R., A logic for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence. v13 i1--2. 81-132.

[24]

B. Verheij, Two approaches to dialectical argumentation: admissible sets and argumentation stages, in: Proceedings of the Eighth Dutch Conference on Artificial Intelligence (NAIC'96), Utrecht, NL, 1996, pp. 357--368

[25]

G.A.W. Vreeswijk, Interpolation of benchmark problems in defeasible reasoning, in: Proceedings of the 2nd World Conference on the Fundamentals of Artificial Intelligence (WOCFAI 95), Paris, France, pp. 453--468

Cited By

Anh KUlbricht MLarson K(2024)Preferred reasoning in ABA by cycle-breakingProceedings of the Thirty-Third International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence10.24963/ijcai.2024/390(3523-3531)Online publication date: 3-Aug-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.24963/ijcai.2024/390
Amgoud LDoder DLagasquie-Schiex MLarson K(2024)Higher-order argumentation frameworksProceedings of the Thirty-Third International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence10.24963/ijcai.2024/357(3224-3231)Online publication date: 3-Aug-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.24963/ijcai.2024/357
Mailly J(2024)Grounded semantics and principle-based analysis for incomplete argumentation frameworksInternational Journal of Approximate Reasoning10.1016/j.ijar.2024.109282175:COnline publication date: 1-Dec-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.ijar.2024.109282
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

On principle-based evaluation of extension-based argumentation semantics
1. Computing methodologies
  1. Artificial intelligence
    1. Knowledge representation and reasoning
  2. Symbolic and algebraic manipulation
    1. Symbolic and algebraic algorithms
      1. Theorem proving algorithms
2. Theory of computation
  1. Logic
  2. Models of computation
    1. Computability

Recommendations

Evaluation and comparison criteria for extension-based argumentation semantics
Proceedings of the 2006 conference on Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2006

In the context of Dung's theory of abstract argumentation frameworks, the comparison between different semantics is often carried out by resorting to some specific examples considered particularly meaningful. This kind of comparison needs to be ...
Comparing Argumentation Semantics with Respect to Skepticism
ECSQARU '07: Proceedings of the 9th European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty

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 ...
Generic Representation for Extension-Based Semantics of Argumentation Frameworks
SYNASC '10: Proceedings of the 2010 12th International Symposium on Symbolic and Numeric Algorithms for Scientific Computing

Argumentation is one of the most active domains in Artificial Intelligence, especially in multi-agent systems. Since the initial work of Dung on abstract argumentation frameworks, many semantics have been proposed, but for most practical cases argument ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image Artificial Intelligence

Artificial Intelligence Volume 171, Issue 10-15

July, 2007

320 pages

ISSN:0004-3702

Issue’s Table of Contents

Copyright © Elsevier B.V. © 2007.

Publisher

Elsevier Science Publishers Ltd.

United Kingdom

Publication History

Published: 01 July 2007

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Article

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

83
Total Citations
View Citations
0
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)0
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

Reflects downloads up to 06 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Anh KUlbricht MLarson K(2024)Preferred reasoning in ABA by cycle-breakingProceedings of the Thirty-Third International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence10.24963/ijcai.2024/390(3523-3531)Online publication date: 3-Aug-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.24963/ijcai.2024/390
Amgoud LDoder DLagasquie-Schiex MLarson K(2024)Higher-order argumentation frameworksProceedings of the Thirty-Third International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence10.24963/ijcai.2024/357(3224-3231)Online publication date: 3-Aug-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.24963/ijcai.2024/357
Mailly J(2024)Grounded semantics and principle-based analysis for incomplete argumentation frameworksInternational Journal of Approximate Reasoning10.1016/j.ijar.2024.109282175:COnline publication date: 1-Dec-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.ijar.2024.109282
Arisaka R(2024)Block Argumentation: Characterising Acceptability Semantics with Two Types of Semantic ConstraintsPRICAI 2024: Trends in Artificial Intelligence10.1007/978-981-96-0128-8_21(239-251)Online publication date: 19-Nov-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-981-96-0128-8_21
Alfano GGreco SParisi FTrubitsyna IAgmon NAn BRicci AYeoh W(2023)Epistemic Abstract Argumentation Framework: Formal Foundations, Computation and ComplexityProceedings of the 2023 International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems10.5555/3545946.3598664(409-417)Online publication date: 30-May-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/3545946.3598664
Blümel LThimm MMarquis PSon TKern-Isberner G(2023)Approximating weakly preferred semantics in abstract argumentation through vacuous reduct semanticsProceedings of the 20th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning10.24963/kr.2023/11(107-116)Online publication date: 2-Sep-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.24963/kr.2023/11
Bernreiter MDvořák WRapberger AWoltran SWilliams BChen YNeville J(2023)The effect of preferences in abstract argumentation under a claim-centric viewProceedings of the Thirty-Seventh AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Thirty-Fifth Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence and Thirteenth Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence10.1609/aaai.v37i5.25770(6253-6261)Online publication date: 7-Feb-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1609/aaai.v37i5.25770
Amgoud LBeuselinck V(2023)An Equivalence Class of Gradual SemanticsSymbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty10.1007/978-3-031-45608-4_8(95-108)Online publication date: 19-Sep-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-031-45608-4_8
Mailly J(2023)Extension-Based Semantics for Incomplete Argumentation Frameworks: Grounded Semantics and PrinciplesSymbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty10.1007/978-3-031-45608-4_7(84-94)Online publication date: 19-Sep-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-031-45608-4_7
Yu LAl Anaissy CVesic SLi Xvan der Torre L(2023)A Principle-Based Analysis of Bipolar Argumentation SemanticsLogics in Artificial Intelligence10.1007/978-3-031-43619-2_15(209-224)Online publication date: 20-Sep-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-031-43619-2_15
Show More Cited By

View Options

View options

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Issue’s Table of Contents