Log In Sign Up

SCF2 – an Argumentation Semantics for Rational Human Judgments on Argument Acceptability: Technical Report

by   Marcos Cramer, et al.

In abstract argumentation theory, many argumentation semantics have been proposed for evaluating argumentation frameworks. This paper is based on the following research question: Which semantics corresponds well to what humans consider a rational judgment on the acceptability of arguments? There are two systematic ways to approach this research question: A normative perspective is provided by the principle-based approach, in which semantics are evaluated based on their satisfaction of various normatively desirable principles. A descriptive perspective is provided by the empirical approach, in which cognitive studies are conducted to determine which semantics best predicts human judgments about arguments. In this paper, we combine both approaches to motivate a new argumentation semantics called SCF2. For this purpose, we introduce and motivate two new principles and show that no semantics from the literature satisfies both of them. We define SCF2 and prove that it satisfies both new principles. Furthermore, we discuss findings of a recent empirical cognitive study that provide additional support to SCF2.


page 1

page 2

page 3

page 4


Technical report of "Empirical Study on Human Evaluation of Complex Argumentation Frameworks"

In abstract argumentation, multiple argumentation semantics have been pr...

Abstract Argumentation and the Rational Man

Abstract argumentation has emerged as a method for non-monotonic reasoni...

Rediscovering Argumentation Principles Utilizing Collective Attacks

Argumentation Frameworks (AFs) are a key formalism in AI research. Their...

The Inverse Problem for Argumentation Gradual Semantics

Gradual semantics with abstract argumentation provide each argument with...

Forecasting Argumentation Frameworks

We introduce Forecasting Argumentation Frameworks (FAFs), a novel argume...

Graduality in Argumentation

Argumentation is based on the exchange and valuation of interacting argu...

Formulating Semantics of Probabilistic Argumentation by Characterizing Subgraphs: Theory and Empirical Results

In existing literature, while approximate approaches based on Monte-Carl...