ScienceDirect® Home Skip Main Navigation Links
You have guest access to ScienceDirect. Find out more.
 
Home
Browse
My Settings
Alerts
Help
 Quick Search
 Search tips (Opens new window)
    Clear all fields    
advertisementadvertisement
Artificial Intelligence
Volume 171, Issues 10-15, July-October 2007, Pages 675-700
Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence
 
Font Size: Decrease Font Size  Increase Font Size
 Abstract - selected
Purchase PDF (341 K)

  E-mail Article   
  Add to my Quick Links   
Bookmark and share in 2collab (opens in new window)
Request permission to reuse this article
  Cited By in Scopus (0)
 
 
 
Related Articles in ScienceDirect
View More Related Articles
 
View Record in Scopus
 
doi:10.1016/j.artint.2007.04.004    How to Cite or Link Using DOI (Opens New Window)
Copyright © 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

On principle-based evaluation of extension-based argumentation semanticsstar, open

Pietro Baronia, E-mail The Corresponding Author and Massimiliano GiacominCorresponding Author Contact Information, a, E-mail The Corresponding Author

aDipartimento di Elettronica per l'Automazione, Università di Brescia, Via Branze 38, I-25123 Brescia, Italy

Received 13 November 2006; 
revised 3 April 2007; 
accepted 16 April 2007. 
Available online 29 April 2007.

Purchase the full-text article



References and further reading may be available for this article. To view references and further reading you must purchase this article.

Abstract

The increasing variety of semantics proposed in the context of Dung's theory of argumentation makes more and more inadequate the example-based approach commonly adopted for evaluating and comparing different semantics. To fill this gap, this paper provides two main contributions. First, a set of general criteria for semantics evaluation is introduced by proposing a formal counterpart to several intuitive notions related to the concepts of maximality, defense, directionality, and skepticism. Then, the proposed criteria are applied in a systematic way to a representative set of argumentation semantics available in the literature, namely grounded, complete, preferred, stable, semi-stable, ideal, prudent, and CF2 semantics.

Keywords: Argumentation frameworks; Argumentation semantics; Skepticism


Artificial Intelligence
Volume 171, Issues 10-15, July-October 2007, Pages 675-700
Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence
 
Home
Browse
My Settings
Alerts
Help
Elsevier.com (Opens new window)
About ScienceDirect  |  Contact Us  |  Information for Advertisers  |  Terms & Conditions  |  Privacy Policy
Copyright © 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. ScienceDirect® is a registered trademark of Elsevier B.V.