Copyright © 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Received 13 November 2006;
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







E-mail Article
Add to my Quick Links

Cited By in Scopus (0)







