Evaluates computational argumentation solvers on their ability to correctly compute extensions (e.g., semi-stable, stage, ideal) across diverse argumentation frameworks ranging from random graphs to application-derived structures. Use when the user wants to benchmark on ICCMA'17 Benchmark Suite, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports exact-match accuracy.
Scanned 9/11/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add qhjqhj00/research-skills-pool --skill iccma17-eval --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Iccma17 Eval?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/qhjqhj00-iccma17-eval)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: iccma17-eval
description: Evaluates computational argumentation solvers on their ability to correctly compute extensions (e.g., semi-stable, stage, ideal) across diverse argumentation frameworks ranging from random graphs to application-derived structures. Use when the user wants to benchmark on ICCMA'17 Benchmark Suite, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports exact-match accuracy.
metadata:
skill_kind: dataset_eval
source_arxiv: 1909.00621
bibtex_key: gaggl2019iccma17
confidence: high
---
# iccma17-eval
> Design and Results of the Second International Competition on Computational Models of Argumentation — Gaggl et al. (2019) (arXiv:1909.00621, 2019)
## What this evaluates
Evaluates computational argumentation solvers on their ability to correctly compute extensions (e.g., semi-stable, stage, ideal) across diverse argumentation frameworks ranging from random graphs to application-derived structures.
## Datasets
- **ICCMA'17 Benchmark Suite** — total 3990; splits: test (3990)
## Metrics
- `exact-match accuracy` **(primary)** — range: [0, 1]
- 1 if the solver's predicted extension exactly matches the ground-truth extension for the given semantics, 0 otherwise. Averaged across all instances in the benchmark suite.
## Input / output format
**Input**: Argumentation Framework (AF) represented as a set of arguments and a binary attack relation between them.
**Output**: Computed extension (set of arguments) or complete labeling according to a specified semantics.
## Scoring recipe
```python
def compute_accuracy(predictions, gold):
correct = sum(1 for p, g in zip(predictions, gold) if set(p) == set(g))
return correct / len(gold)
```
## Common pitfalls
- Different semantics (semi-stable, stage, ideal) have distinct extension definitions; evaluating across them requires separate ground-truth labels.
- Instance generation parameters (e.g., n, probAttacks) vary widely and must be fixed to ensure reproducibility across runs.
- Runtime/efficiency is often tracked in competitions but is distinct from correctness accuracy.
## Evidence (verbatim from paper)
> The second International Competition on Computational Models of Argumentation (ICCMA'17) introduces three new semantics—semi-stable, stage, and ideal—and implements a novel scoring scheme, instance selection process, and a 'Dung's Triathlon' track that evaluates solvers across multiple complexity layers. Thus, the benchmark suite of ICCMA'17 is finally composed of 3990 instances over 11 domains.
## Citation
```bibtex
@misc{gaggl2019iccma17,
title={Design and Results of the Second International Competition on Computational Models of Argumentation},
author={Gaggl et al. (2019)},
year={2019},
note={arXiv:1909.00621}
}
```
- arXiv: 1909.00621

Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!