An empirical and axiomatic comparison of ranking-based semantics for abstract argumentation - Archive ouverte HAL Accéder directement au contenu
Article Dans Une Revue Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics Année : 2023

An empirical and axiomatic comparison of ranking-based semantics for abstract argumentation

Résumé

Argumentation is the 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 proposed independently, often associated with some desirable properties. In this work, we provide a thorough analysis of ranking-based semantics in two different ways. The first is an empirical comparison on randomly generated argumentation frameworks which reveals insights into similarities and differences between ranking-based semantics. The second is an axiomatic comparison of all these semantics with respect to the proposed properties aiming to better understand the behaviour of each semantics.
Fichier principal
Vignette du fichier
[final_version]BDKM_ranking_semantics.pdf (639.57 Ko) Télécharger le fichier
Origine : Fichiers produits par l'(les) auteur(s)

Dates et versions

hal-04189781 , version 1 (06-03-2024)

Identifiants

Citer

Elise Bonzon, Jérôme Delobelle, Sébastien Konieczny, Nicolas Maudet. An empirical and axiomatic comparison of ranking-based semantics for abstract argumentation. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics, 2023, 33 (3-4), pp.328-386. ⟨10.1080/11663081.2023.2246863⟩. ⟨hal-04189781⟩
60 Consultations
5 Téléchargements

Altmetric

Partager

Gmail Facebook X LinkedIn More