Showing 1–3 of 3 results for author: Delobelle, J

Impact Measures for Gradual Argumentation Semantics

Authors: Caren Al Anaissy, Jérôme Delobelle, Srdjan Vesic, Bruno Yun

Abstract: Argumentation is a formalism allowing to reason with contradictory information by modeling arguments and their interactions. There are now an increasing number of gradual semantics and impact measures that have emerged to facilitate the interpretation of their outcomes. An impact measure assesses, for each argument, the impact of other arguments on its score. In this paper, we refine an existing i… ▽ More Argumentation is a formalism allowing to reason with contradictory information by modeling arguments and their interactions. There are now an increasing number of gradual semantics and impact measures that have emerged to facilitate the interpretation of their outcomes. An impact measure assesses, for each argument, the impact of other arguments on its score. In this paper, we refine an existing impact measure from Delobelle and Villata and introduce a new impact measure rooted in Shapley values. We introduce several principles to evaluate those two impact measures w.r.t. some well-known gradual semantics. This comprehensive analysis provides deeper insights into their functionality and desirability. △ Less

Submitted 11 July, 2024; originally announced July 2024.

A note on the uniqueness of models in social abstract argumentation

Authors: Leila Amgoud, Elise Bonzon, Marco Correia, Jorge Cruz, Jérôme Delobelle, Sébastien Konieczny, João Leite, Alexis Martin, Nicolas Maudet, Srdjan Vesic

Abstract: Social abstract argumentation is a principled way to assign values to conflicting (weighted) arguments. In this note we discuss the important property of the uniqueness of the model. Social abstract argumentation is a principled way to assign values to conflicting (weighted) arguments. In this note we discuss the important property of the uniqueness of the model. △ Less

Submitted 9 May, 2017; originally announced May 2017.

A Comparative Study of Ranking-based Semantics for Abstract Argumentation

Authors: Elise Bonzon, Jérôme Delobelle, Sébastien Konieczny, Nicolas Maudet

Abstract: Argumentation is a process of evaluating and comparing a set of arguments. A way to compare them consists in using a ranking-based semantics which rank-order arguments from the most to the least acceptable ones. Recently, a number of such semantics have been proposed independently, often associated with some desirable properties. However, there is no comparative study which takes a broader perspec… ▽ More Argumentation is a process of evaluating and comparing a set of arguments. A way to compare them consists in using a ranking-based semantics which rank-order arguments from the most to the least acceptable ones. Recently, a number of such semantics have been proposed independently, often associated with some desirable properties. However, there is no comparative study which takes a broader perspective. This is what we propose in this work. We provide a general comparison of all these semantics with respect to the proposed properties. That allows to underline the differences of behavior between the existing semantics. △ Less

Submitted 2 February, 2016; originally announced February 2016.

Comments: Proceedings of the 30th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-2016), Feb 2016, Phoenix, United States