Evaluating Argumentation Semantics with Respect to Skepticism Adequacy

  • Pietro Baroni
  • Massimiliano Giacomin
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3571)

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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    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)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    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)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baroni, P., Giacomin, M.: A general recursive schema for argumentation semantics. In: Proc. of ECAI 2004, Valencia, Spain, pp. 783–787 (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    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)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pollock, J.L.: How to reason defeasibly. Artificial Intelligence 57, 1–42 (1992)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Prakken, H., Vreeswijk, G.: Logics for defeasible argumentation. In: Gabbay, D., Guenthner, F. (eds.) Handbook of Philosophical Logic, Kluwer, Dordrecht (2001)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Reiter, R.: A logic for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 13, 81–132 (1980)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schlechta, K.: Directly sceptical inheritance cannot capture the intersection of extensions. Journal of Logic and Computation 3, 455–467 (1993)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pietro Baroni
    • 1
  • Massimiliano Giacomin
    • 1
  1. 1.Dipartimento di Elettronica per l’AutomazioneUniversità di BresciaBresciaItaly

Personalised recommendations