Comparison Criteria for Argumentation Semantics

  • Sylvie Doutre
  • Jean-Guy MaillyEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10767)


Argumentation reasoning is a way for agents to evaluate a situation. Given a framework made of conflicting arguments, a semantics allows to evaluate the acceptability of the arguments. It may happen that the semantics associated to the framework has to be changed. In order to perform the most suitable change, the current and a potential new semantics have to be compared. Notions of difference measures between semantics have already been proposed, and application cases where they have to be minimized when a change of semantics has to be performed, have been highlighted. This paper develops these notions, it proposes an additional kind of difference measure, and shows application cases where measures may have to be maximized, and combined.



This work benefited from the support of the project AMANDE ANR-13-BS02-0004 of the French National Research Agency (ANR).


  1. 1.
    Amgoud, L., Ben-Naim, J.: Ranking-based semantics for argumentation frameworks. In: Liu, W., Subrahmanian, V.S., Wijsen, J. (eds.) SUM 2013. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 8078, pp. 134–147. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). Scholar
  2. 2.
    Amgoud, L., Dimopoulos, Y., Moraitis, P.: A unified and general framework for argumentation-based negotiation. In: Proceedings of AAMAS 2007, p. 158 (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Amgoud, L., Dimopoulos, Y., Moraitis, P.: Making decisions through preference-based argumentation. In: Proceedings of KR 2008, pp. 113–123 (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baroni, P., Caminada, M., Giacomin, M.: An introduction to argumentation semantics. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 26, 365–410 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baroni, P., Giacomin, M.: Skepticism relations for comparing argumentation semantics. Int. J. Approx. Reason. 50(6), 854–866 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Baroni, P., Giacomin, M., Guida, G.: SCC-recursiveness: a general schema for argumentation semantics. Artif. Intell. 168, 162–210 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Baumann, R.: What does it take to enforce an argument? Minimal change in abstract argumentation. In: Proceedings of ECAI 2012, pp. 127–132 (2012)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Baumann, R., Brewka, G.: Expanding argumentation frameworks: Enforcing and monotonicity results. In: Proceedings of COMMA 2010, pp. 75–86 (2010)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Besnard, P., Doutre, S., Herzig, A.: Encoding argument graphs in logic. In: Laurent, A., Strauss, O., Bouchon-Meunier, B., Yager, R.R. (eds.) IPMU 2014. CCIS, vol. 443, pp. 345–354. Springer, Cham (2014). Scholar
  10. 10.
    Besnard, P., Doutre, S., Ho, V.H., Longin, D.: SESAME - a system for specifying semantics in abstract argumentation. In: Thimm, M., Cerutti, F., Strass, H., Vallati, M. (eds.) Proceedings of SAFA 2016, vol. 1672, pp. 40–51. CEUR Workshop Proceedings (2016)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bonzon, E., Delobelle, J., Konieczny, S., Maudet, N.: A comparative study of ranking-based semantics for abstract argumentation. In: Proceedings of AAAI 2016 (2016)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Caminada, M.: Semi-stable semantics. In: Proceedings of COMMA 2006 (2006)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Caminada, M.: Comparing two unique extension semantics for formal argumentation: ideal and eager (2007)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Coste-Marquis, S., Devred, C., Marquis, P.: Symmetric argumentation frameworks. In: Godo, L. (ed.) ECSQARU 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3571, pp. 317–328. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dimopoulos, Y., Torres, A.: Graph theoretical structures in logic programs and default theories. Theor. Comput. Sci. 170(1–2), 209–244 (1996)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Doutre, S., Mailly, J.G.: Quantifying the Difference between Argumentation Semantics. In: Computational models of argument (COMMA), vol. 287, pp. 255–262. IOS Press (2016)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Doutre, S., Mailly, J.-G.: Semantic change and extension enforcement in abstract argumentation. In: Moral, S., Pivert, O., Sánchez, D., Marín, N. (eds.) SUM 2017. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 10564, pp. 194–207. Springer, Cham (2017). Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming, and n-person games. Artif. Intell. 77(2), 321–357 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dung, P., Mancarella, P., Toni, F.: Adialectic procedure for sceptical, assumption-based argumentation. In: COMMA 2006 (2006)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dunne, P.E.: The computational complexity of ideal semantics. Artif. Intell. 173, 1559–1591 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dunne, P.E., Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Coherence in finite argument systems. Artif. Intell. 141(1/2), 187–203 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dunne, P.E., Caminada, M.: Computational complexity of semi-stable semantics in abstract argumentation frameworks. In: Hölldobler, S., Lutz, C., Wansing, H. (eds.) JELIA 2008. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5293, pp. 153–165. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). Scholar
  23. 23.
    Dunne, P.E., Dvorák, W., Woltran, S.: Parametric properties of ideal semantics. Artif. Intell. 202, 1–28 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Dvorák, W., Spanring, C.: Comparing the expressiveness of argumentation semantics. In: Proceedings of COMMA 2012, vol. 245, pp. 261–272. IOS Press (2012)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Dvorák, W., Woltran, S.: Complexity of semi-stable and stage semantics in argumentation frameworks. Inf. Process. Lett. 110(11), 425–430 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Grossi, D., Modgil, S.: On the graded acceptability of arguments. In: Proceedings of IJCAI 2015, pp. 868–874 (2015)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hunter, A.: Opportunities for argument-centric persuasion in behaviour change. In: Fermé, E., Leite, J. (eds.) JELIA 2014. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 8761, pp. 48–61. Springer, Cham (2014). Scholar
  28. 28.
    Papadimitriou, C.H.: Computational complexity. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1994)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Verheij, B.: Two approaches to dialectical argumentation: admissible sets and argumentation stages. In: Proceedings of BNAIC 1996 (1996)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.IRIT, Université Toulouse 1 CapitoleToulouseFrance
  2. 2.LIPADE, Université Paris DescartesParisFrance

Personalised recommendations