Abstract
Analyzing argumentation semantics with respect to the notion of skepticism is an important issue for developing general and well-founded 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 argument justification states into seven distinct classes and on the definition of a weak and a strong version of skepticism relation, we define the property of skepticism adequacy of an argumentation semantics, which basically consists in requiring a lesser commitment when transforming a unidirectional attack into a mutual one. We then verify the skepticism adequacy of some literature proposals and obtain the rather surprising result that some semantics fail to satisfy this basic property.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Baroni, P., Giacomin, M.: Solving semantic problems with odd-length cycles in argumentation. In: Nielsen, T.D., Zhang, N.L. (eds.) ECSQARU 2003. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2711, pp. 440–451. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)
Baroni, P., Giacomin, M.: A recursive approach to argumentation: motivation and perspectives. In: Proc. of the 10th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning (NMR 2004), Whistler BC, Canada, pp. 50–58 (2004)
Baroni, P., Giacomin, M., Giovanni, G.: Towards a formalization of skepticism in extension-based argumentation semantics. In: Proc. 4th Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument (CMNA 2004), Valencia, Spain, pp. 47–52 (2004)
Baroni, P., Giacomin, M.: A general recursive schema for argumentation semantics. In: Proc. of ECAI 2004, Valencia, Spain, pp. 783–787 (2004)
Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming, and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence 77, 321–357 (1995)
Pollock, J.L.: How to reason defeasibly. Artificial Intelligence 57, 1–42 (1992)
Prakken, H., Vreeswijk, G.: Logics for defeasible argumentation. In: Gabbay, D., Guenthner, F. (eds.) Handbook of Philosophical Logic, Kluwer, Dordrecht (2001)
Reiter, R.: A logic for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 13, 81–132 (1980)
Schlechta, K.: Directly sceptical inheritance cannot capture the intersection of extensions. Journal of Logic and Computation 3, 455–467 (1993)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2005 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Baroni, P., Giacomin, M. (2005). Evaluating Argumentation Semantics with Respect to Skepticism Adequacy. In: Godo, L. (eds) Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty. ECSQARU 2005. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 3571. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/11518655_29
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/11518655_29
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-27326-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-31888-0
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)