An argumentation semantics for rational human evaluation of arguments
In abstract argumentation theory, many argumentation semantics have been proposed for evaluating argumentation frameworks. This article is based on the following research question: Which semantics corresponds well to what humans consider a rational judgment on the acceptability of arguments? There a...
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2023-03-01
|
| Series: | Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frai.2023.1045663/full |
| _version_ | 1797862037479489536 |
|---|---|
| author | Marcos Cramer Leendert van der Torre |
| author_facet | Marcos Cramer Leendert van der Torre |
| author_sort | Marcos Cramer |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | In abstract argumentation theory, many argumentation semantics have been proposed for evaluating argumentation frameworks. This article 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 article, 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. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-09T22:12:53Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-73e24085fedb4bfda734d515b1904f48 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2624-8212 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-09T22:12:53Z |
| publishDate | 2023-03-01 |
| publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence |
| spelling | doaj.art-73e24085fedb4bfda734d515b1904f482023-03-23T06:35:40ZengFrontiers Media S.A.Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence2624-82122023-03-01610.3389/frai.2023.10456631045663An argumentation semantics for rational human evaluation of argumentsMarcos Cramer0Leendert van der Torre1Institute for Artificial Intelligence, TU Dresden, Dresden, GermanyDepartment of Computer Science, University of Luxembourg, Esch-sur-Alzette, LuxembourgIn abstract argumentation theory, many argumentation semantics have been proposed for evaluating argumentation frameworks. This article 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 article, 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.https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frai.2023.1045663/fullknowledge representationformal argumentationabstract argumentationargumentation semanticsprinciple-based approach |
| spellingShingle | Marcos Cramer Leendert van der Torre An argumentation semantics for rational human evaluation of arguments Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence knowledge representation formal argumentation abstract argumentation argumentation semantics principle-based approach |
| title | An argumentation semantics for rational human evaluation of arguments |
| title_full | An argumentation semantics for rational human evaluation of arguments |
| title_fullStr | An argumentation semantics for rational human evaluation of arguments |
| title_full_unstemmed | An argumentation semantics for rational human evaluation of arguments |
| title_short | An argumentation semantics for rational human evaluation of arguments |
| title_sort | argumentation semantics for rational human evaluation of arguments |
| topic | knowledge representation formal argumentation abstract argumentation argumentation semantics principle-based approach |
| url | https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frai.2023.1045663/full |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT marcoscramer anargumentationsemanticsforrationalhumanevaluationofarguments AT leendertvandertorre anargumentationsemanticsforrationalhumanevaluationofarguments AT marcoscramer argumentationsemanticsforrationalhumanevaluationofarguments AT leendertvandertorre argumentationsemanticsforrationalhumanevaluationofarguments |