Ranking Extensions in Abstract Argumentation

Kenneth Skiba, Tjitze Rienstra, Matthias Thimm, Jesse Heyninck, Gabriele Kern-Isberner

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference article in proceedingAcademicpeer-review

18 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Extension-based semantics in abstract argumentation provide a criterion to determine whether a set of arguments is acceptable or not. In this paper, we present the notion of extension-ranking semantics, which determines a preordering over sets of arguments, where one set is deemed more plausible than another if it is somehow more acceptable. We obtain extension-based semantics as a special case of this new approach, but it also allows us to make more fine-grained distinctions, such as one set being “more complete” or “more admissible” than another. We define a number of general principles to classify extension-ranking semantics and develop concrete approaches. We also study the relation between extension-ranking semantics and argument-ranking semantics, which rank individual arguments instead of sets of arguments.

Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationProceedings of the Thirtieth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-21)
Pages2047-2053
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2021
Externally publishedYes
Event30th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence -
Duration: 21 Aug 2021 → …

Conference

Conference30th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence
Abbreviated titleIJCAI
Period21/08/21 → …

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Ranking Extensions in Abstract Argumentation'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this