Ranking Extensions in Abstract Argumentation
Kenneth Skiba, Tjitze Rienstra, Matthias Thimm, Jesse Heyninck, Gabriele Kern-Isberner
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 based semantics, which rank individual arguments instead of sets of arguments.
BibTeX
@inproceedings{ijcai2021p282,
title = {Ranking Extensions in Abstract Argumentation},
author = {Skiba, Kenneth and Rienstra, Tjitze and Thimm, Matthias and Heyninck, Jesse and Kern-Isberner, Gabriele},
booktitle = {Proceedings of the Thirtieth International Joint Conference on
Artificial Intelligence, {IJCAI-21}},
publisher = {International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence Organization},
editor = {Zhi-Hua Zhou},
pages = {2047--2053},
year = {2021},
month = {8},
note = {Main Track},
doi = {10.24963/ijcai.2021/282},
url = {https://doi.org/10.24963/ijcai.2021/282},
}