We compare four different implementations of reasoning-tools dedicated to Abstract Argumentation Frameworks. These systems are ArgTools, ASPARTIX, ConArg2, and Dung-O-Matic. They have been tested over three different models of randomly-generated graph models, corresponding to the Erdős-Rényi model, the Kleinberg small-world model, and the scale-free Barabasi-Albert model. This first comparison is useful to study the behaviour of these tools over networks with different topologies (also small-world): we scale the number of arguments to check the limits of today’s systems. Such results can be used to guide further improvements of ConArg2 (our tool), but also different tools.
A Comparative Test on the Enumeration of Extensions in Abstract Argumentation
BISTARELLI, Stefano;ROSSI, Fabio;SANTINI, FRANCESCO
2015
Abstract
We compare four different implementations of reasoning-tools dedicated to Abstract Argumentation Frameworks. These systems are ArgTools, ASPARTIX, ConArg2, and Dung-O-Matic. They have been tested over three different models of randomly-generated graph models, corresponding to the Erdős-Rényi model, the Kleinberg small-world model, and the scale-free Barabasi-Albert model. This first comparison is useful to study the behaviour of these tools over networks with different topologies (also small-world): we scale the number of arguments to check the limits of today’s systems. Such results can be used to guide further improvements of ConArg2 (our tool), but also different tools.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
