Some Supplementaries to The Counting Semantics for Abstract Argumentation

Dung's abstract argumentation framework consists of a set of interacting arguments and a series of semantics for evaluating them. Those semantics partition the powerset of the set of arguments into two classes: extensions and non-extensions. In order to reason with a specific semantics, one needs to take a credulous or skeptical approach, i.e. an argument is eventually accepted, if it is accepted in one or all extensions, respectively. In our previous work \cite{ref-pu2015counting}, we have proposed a novel semantics, called \emph{counting semantics}, which allows for a more fine-grained assessment to arguments by counting the number of their respective attackers and defenders based on argument graph and argument game. In this paper, we continue our previous work by presenting some supplementaries about how to choose the damaging factor for the counting semantics, and what relationships with some existing approaches, such as Dung's classical semantics, generic gradual valuations. Lastly, an axiomatic perspective on the ranking semantics induced by our counting semantics are presented.Comment: 8 pages, 3 figures, ICTAI 201

Formalisation and logical properties of the maximal ideal recursive semantics for weighted defeasible logic programming

Possibilistic defeasible logic programming (P-DeLP) is a logic programming framework which combines features from argumentation theory and logic programming, in which defeasible rules are attached with weights expressing their relative belief or preference strength. In P-DeLP,a conclusion succeeds if there exists an argument that entails the conclusion and this argument is found to be undefeated by a warrant procedure that systematically explores the universe of arguments in order to present an exhaustive synthesis of the relevant chains of pros and cons for the given conclusion. Recently, we have proposed a new warrant recursive semantics for P-DeLP, called Recursive P-DeLP (RP-DeLP for short), based on the claim that the acceptance of an argument should imply also the acceptance of all its sub-arguments which reflect the different premises on which the argument is based. This paper explores the relationship between the exhaustive dialectical analysis-based semantics of P-DeLP and the recursive-based semantics of RP-DeLP, and analyses a non-monotonic inference operator for RP-DeLP which models the expansion of a given program by adding new weighted facts associated with warranted conclusions. Given the recursive-based semantics of RP-DeLP, we have also implemented an argumentation framework for RP-DeLP that is able to compute not only the output of warranted and blocked conclusions, but also explain the reasons behind the status of each conclusion. We have developed this framework as a stand-alone application with a simple text-based input/output interface to be able to use it as part of other artificial intelligence systemsThis research was partially supported by the Spanish projects EdeTRI (TIN2012-39348-C02-01) and AT (CONSOLIDER- INGENIO 2010, CSD2007-00022)

How we designed winning algorithms for abstract argumentation and which insight we attained

In this paper we illustrate the design choices that led to the development of ArgSemSAT, the winner of the preferred semantics track at the 2017 International Competition on Computational Models of Arguments (ICCMA 2017), a biennial contest on problems associated to the Dung’s model of abstract argumentation frameworks, widely recognised as a fundamental reference in computational argumentation. The algorithms of ArgSemSAT are based on multiple calls to a SAT solver to compute complete labellings, and on encoding constraints to drive the search towards the solution of decision and enumeration problems. In this paper we focus on preferred semantics (and incidentally stable as well), one of the most popular and complex semantics for identifying acceptable arguments. We discuss our design methodology that includes a systematic exploration and empirical evaluation of labelling encodings, algorithmic variations and SAT solver choices. In designing the successful ArgSemSAT, we discover that: (1) there is a labelling encoding that appears to be universally better than other, logically equivalent ones; (2) composition of different techniques such as AllSAT and enumerating stable extensions when searching for preferred semantics brings advantages; (3) injecting domain specific knowledge in the algorithm design can lead to significant improvements

Explain what you see:argumentation-based learning and robotic vision

In this thesis, we have introduced new techniques for the problems of open-ended learning, online incremental learning, and explainable learning. These methods have applications in the classification of tabular data, 3D object category recognition, and 3D object parts segmentation. We have utilized argumentation theory and probability theory to develop these methods. The first proposed open-ended online incremental learning approach is Argumentation-Based online incremental Learning (ABL). ABL works with tabular data and can learn with a small number of learning instances using an abstract argumentation framework and bipolar argumentation framework. It has a higher learning speed than state-of-the-art online incremental techniques. However, it has high computational complexity. We have addressed this problem by introducing Accelerated Argumentation-Based Learning (AABL). AABL uses only an abstract argumentation framework and uses two strategies to accelerate the learning process and reduce the complexity. The second proposed open-ended online incremental learning approach is the Local Hierarchical Dirichlet Process (Local-HDP). Local-HDP aims at addressing two problems of open-ended category recognition of 3D objects and segmenting 3D object parts. We have utilized Local-HDP for the task of object part segmentation in combination with AABL to achieve an interpretable model to explain why a certain 3D object belongs to a certain category. The explanations of this model tell a user that a certain object has specific object parts that look like a set of the typical parts of certain categories. Moreover, integrating AABL and Local-HDP leads to a model that can handle a high degree of occlusion

Defeasible Logic to Model n-person Argumentation Game

In multi-agent systems, an individual agent can pursue its own goals, which may conflict with those hold by other agents. To settle on a common goal for the group of agents, the argumentation/dialogue game provides a robust and flexible tool where an agent can send its explanation for its goal in order to convince other agents. In the setting that the number of agents is greater than two and they are equally trustful, it is not clear how to extend existing argumentation/dialogue frameworks to tackle conflicts from many agents. We propose to use the defeasible logic to model the n-person argumentation game and to use the majority rule as an additional preference mechanism to tackle conflicts between arguments from individual agents

Predictive Models and Abstract Argumentation: the case of High-Complexity Semantics

In this paper we describe how predictive models can be positively exploited in abstract argumentation. In particular, we present two main sets of results. On one side, we show that predictive models are effective for performing algorithm selection in order to determine which approach is better to enumerate the preferred extensions of a given argumentation framework. On the other side, we show that predictive models predict significant aspects of the solution to the preferred extensions enumeration problem. By exploiting an extensive set of argumentation framework features— i.e., values that summarise a potentially important property of a framework—the proposed approach is able to provide an accurate prediction about which algorithm would be faster on a given problem instance, as well as of the structure of the solution, where the complete knowledge of such structure would require a computationally hard problem to be solved. Improving the ability of existing argumentation-based systems to support human sense-making and decision processes is just one of the possible exploitations of such knowledge obtained in an inexpensive way