This page is under construction!
Actual content will be added as soon as possible.
General Description
This webpage aims at describing research in the field of Computational Argumentation. More specifically, the question that we study is why and how the semantics of an argumentation framework can be modified in the context of argumentation dynamics.
Related Publications
- Sylvie Doutre, Jean-Guy Mailly, Quantifying the Difference between Argumentation Semantics, 6th International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA'16), short paper
download - bibtex
- Sylvie Doutre, Jean-Guy Mailly, Semantic Change and Extension Enforcement in Abstract Argumentation, 11th International Conference on Scalable Uncertainty Management (SUM'17)
download - bibtex
- Sylvie Doutre, Jean-Guy Mailly, Comparison Criteria for Argumentation Semantics, 15th European Conference on Multi-Agent Systems (EUMAS 2017), extended version of COMMA'16 paper
download - bibtex - presentation
Software
Different pieces of software have been used for our experiment:
- Pakota has been used to compute extension enforcement under the complete, stable and admissible semantics;
- a Java tool implemented by Jean-Guy Mailly has been used to compute extension enforcement under the naive semantics.
Benchmark
We have used the extension enforcement instances provided by the Pakota project, available
here.
Detailed Results of Experiments
A detailed analysis of the experiments from (Doutre and Mailly, SUM'17) will be presented soon.
People Involved
This research is conducted by
Sylvie Doutre, associate professor in computer science at University of Toulouse 1, France; and
Jean-Guy Mailly, assistant professor in computer science at University Paris Descartes, France.