A Comparative Study of Ranking-Based Semantics for Abstract Argumentation

Authors

  • Elise Bonzon LIPADE, Université Paris Descartes
  • Jérôme Delobelle CRIL, CNRS - Université d'Artois
  • Sébastien Konieczny CRIL, CNRS - Université d'Artois
  • Nicolas Maudet Sorbonne Université UPMC Université Paris 06

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v30i1.10116

Keywords:

Abstract Argumentation, Ranking-based semantics

Abstract

Argumentation is a process of evaluating and comparing a set of arguments. A way to compare them consists in using a ranking-based semantics which rank-order arguments from the most to the least acceptable ones. Recently, a number of such semantics have been pro- posed independently, often associated with some desirable properties. However, there is no comparative study which takes a broader perspective. This is what we propose in this work. We provide a general comparison of all these semantics with respect to the proposed proper- ties. That allows to underline the differences of behavior between the existing semantics.

Downloads

Published

2016-02-21

How to Cite

Bonzon, E., Delobelle, J., Konieczny, S., & Maudet, N. (2016). A Comparative Study of Ranking-Based Semantics for Abstract Argumentation. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 30(1). https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v30i1.10116

Issue

Section

Technical Papers: Knowledge Representation and Reasoning