Comparing Argumentation Semantics with Respect to Skepticism

  • Pietro Baroni
  • Massimiliano Giacomin
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4724)

Abstract

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 skepticism relation.

Keywords

Argumentation semantics Skepticism 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Vreeswijk, G.A.W.: Interpolation of benchmark problems in defeasible reasoning. In: Proc. of the 2nd World Conf. on the Fundamentals of Artificial Intelligence (WOCFAI 1995), Paris, France, pp. 453–468 (1995)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Prakken, H.: Intuitions and the modelling of defeasible reasoning: some case studies. In: Proc. of the 9th Int. Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning (NMR 2002), Toulouse, France, pp. 91–102 (2002)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Caminada, M., Amgoud, L.: An axiomatic account of formal argumentation. In: Proc. of the Twentieth National Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2005), Menlo Park, pp. 608–613. AAAI Press, Stanford (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming, and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence 77(2), 321–357 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baroni, P., Giacomin, M.: Evaluation and comparison criteria for extension-based argumentation semantics. In: Proc. of the 1st Int. Conf. on ComputationalModels of Arguments (COMMA 2006), Liverpool, pp. 157–168. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Baroni, P., Giacomin, M., Guida, G.: Towards a formalization of skepticism in extension-based argumentation semantics. In: Proc. of the 4th Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument (CMNA 2004), Valencia, E, pp. 47–52 (2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    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
  8. 8.
    Baroni, P., Giacomin, M., Guida, G.: SCC-recursiveness: a general schema for argumentation semantics. Artificial Intelligence 168(1-2), 165–210 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Caminada, M.: Semi-stable semantics. In: Proc. of the 1st Int. Conf. on Computational Models of Arguments (COMMA 2006), Liverpool, pp. 121–130. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dung, P.M., Mancarella, P., Toni, F.: A dialectic procedure for sceptical, assumption-based argumentation. In: Proc. of the 1st Int. Conf. on Computational Models of Arguments (COMMA 2006), Liverpool, pp. 145–156. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2006)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Coste-Marquis, S., Devred, C., Marquis, P.: Prudent semantics for argumentation frameworks. In: Proc. of the 17th IEEE Int. Conf. on Tools with Artificial Intelligence (ICTAI 2005), Hong Kong, pp. 568–572. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2005)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Coste-Marquis, S., Devred, C., Marquis, P.: Sémantiques prudentes pour les systémes dárgumentation. In: Proc. of the 15th Congres AFRIF-AFIA Reconnaissance des Formes et Intelligence Artificielle (RFIA 2006), Tours, F (2006)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Baroni, P., Giacomin, M.: Evaluating argumentation semantics with respect to skepticism adequacy. In: Godo, L. (ed.) ECSQARU 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3571, pp. 329–340. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Baroni, P., Giacomin, M.: On principle-based evaluation, comparison, and design of extension-based argumentation semantics. Tech. Rep., Univ. of Brescia, I (2007)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Prakken, H.: Combining sceptical epistemic reasoning with credulous practical reasoning. In: Proc. of the 1st Int. Conf. on Computational Models of Arguments (COMMA 2006), Liverpool, pp. 311–322. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pietro Baroni
    • 1
  • Massimiliano Giacomin
    • 1
  1. 1.Dip. Elettronica per l’AutomazioneUniversity of BresciaBresciaItaly

Personalised recommendations