A Unifying Framework for Learning Argumentation Semantics

Argumentation is a very active research field of Artificial Intelligence concerned with the representation and evaluation of arguments used in dialogues between humans and/or artificial agents. Acceptability semantics of formal argumentation systems define the criteria for the acceptance or rejection of arguments. Several software systems, known as argumentation solvers, have been developed to compute the accepted/rejected arguments using such criteria. These include systems that learn to identify the accepted arguments using non-interpretable methods. In this paper we present a novel framework, which uses an Inductive Logic Programming approach to learn the acceptability semantics for several abstract and structured argumentation frameworks in an interpretable way. Through an empirical evaluation we show that our framework outperforms existing argumentation solvers, thus opening up new future research directions in the area of formal argumentation and human-machine dialogues

Modeling time and valuation in structured argumentation frameworks

Temporal Argumentation Frameworks (TAF) represent a recent extension of Dung's abstract argumentation frameworks that consider the temporal availability of arguments. In a TAF, arguments are valid during specific time intervals, called availability intervals, while the attack relation of the framework remains static and permanent in time; thus, in general, when identifying the set of acceptable arguments, the outcome associated with a TAF will vary in time. We introduce an extension of TAF, called Extended Temporal Argumentation Framework (E-TAF), adding the capability of modeling the temporal availability of attacks among arguments, thus modeling special features of arguments varying over time and the possibility that attacks are only available in a given time interval. E-TAF will be enriched by considering Structured Abstract Argumentation, using Dynamic Argumentation Frameworks. The resulting framework, E-TAF∗, provides a suitable model for different time-dependent issues satisfying properties and equivalence results that permit to contrast the expressivity of E-TAF and E-TAF∗ with argumentation based on abstract frameworks. Thus, the main contribution here is to provide an enhanced framework for modeling special features of argumentation varying over time, which are relevant in many real-world situations. The proposal aims at advancing in the integration of time and valuation in the context of argumentation systems as well.Fil: Budan, Maximiliano Celmo David. Universidad Nacional del Sur. Departamento de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de Santiago del Estero. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Tecnologías. Departamento de Matemática; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Bahía Blanca; ArgentinaFil: Gomez Lucero, Mauro Javier. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Bahía Blanca; Argentina. Universidad Nacional del Sur. Departamento de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación; ArgentinaFil: Chesñevar, Carlos Iván. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Bahía Blanca; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de Santiago del Estero. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Tecnologías. Departamento de Matemática; Argentina. Universidad Nacional del Sur. Departamento de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación; ArgentinaFil: Simari, Guillermo Ricardo. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Bahía Blanca; Argentina. Universidad Nacional del Sur. Departamento de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación; Argentin

Directionality of Attacks in Natural Language Argumentation

In formal (abstract and structured) argumentation theory, a central notion is that of an attack between a counterargument and the argument that it is challenging. Unlike the notion of an inconsistency between two statements in classical logic, this notion of an attack between arguments can be asymmetric, i.e. an argument A can attack an argument B without B attacking A. While this property of the formal systems studied by argumentation theorist has been motivated by considerations about the human practice of argumentation in natural language, there have not been any systematic studies on the connection between the directionality of attacks in argumentation-theoretic formalisms and the way humans actually interpret conflicts between arguments in a non-symmetric way. In this paper, we report on the result of two empirical cognitive studies that aim at filling this gap, one study with ordinary adults (undergraduate students) and one study with adult experts in formal argumentation theory. We interpret the results in light of the notions and distinctions defined in the ASPIC+ framework for structured argumentation, and discuss the relevance of our findings to past and future empirical studies about the link between human argumentation and formal argumentation theory

A logic of defeasible argumentation: Constructing arguments in justification logic

In the 1980s, Pollock’s work on default reasons started the quest in the AI community for a formal system of defeasible argumentation. The main goal of this paper is to provide a logic of structured defeasible arguments using the language of justification logic. In this logic, we introduce defeasible justification assertions of the type t:F that read as “t is a defeasible reason that justifies F”. Such formulas are then interpreted as arguments and their acceptance semantics is given in analogy to Dung’s abstract argumentation framework semantics. We show that a large subclass of Dung’s frameworks that we call “warranted” frameworks is a special case of our logic in the sense that (1) Dung’s frameworks can be obtained from justification logic-based theories by focusing on a single aspect of attacks among justification logic arguments and (2) Dung’s warranted frameworks always have multiple justification logic instantiations called “realizations”. We first define a new justification logic that relies on operational semantics for default logic. One of the key features that is absent in standard justification logics is the possibility to weigh different epistemic reasons or pieces of evidence that might conflict with one another. To amend this, we develop a semantics for “defeaters”: conflicting reasons forming a basis to doubt the original conclusion or to believe an opposite statement. This enables us to formalize non-monotonic justifications that prompt extension revision already for normal default theories. Then we present our logic as a system for abstract argumentation with structured arguments. The format of conflicting reasons overlaps with the idea of attacks between arguments to the extent that it is possible to define all the standard notions of argumentation framework extensions. Using the definitions of extensions, we establish formal correspondence between Dung’s original argumentation semantics and our operational semantics for default theories. One of the results shows that the notorious attack cycles from abstract argumentation cannot always be realized as justification logic default theories

A Labelling Framework for Probabilistic Argumentation

The combination of argumentation and probability paves the way to new accounts of qualitative and quantitative uncertainty, thereby offering new theoretical and applicative opportunities. Due to a variety of interests, probabilistic argumentation is approached in the literature with different frameworks, pertaining to structured and abstract argumentation, and with respect to diverse types of uncertainty, in particular the uncertainty on the credibility of the premises, the uncertainty about which arguments to consider, and the uncertainty on the acceptance status of arguments or statements. Towards a general framework for probabilistic argumentation, we investigate a labelling-oriented framework encompassing a basic setting for rule-based argumentation and its (semi-) abstract account, along with diverse types of uncertainty. Our framework provides a systematic treatment of various kinds of uncertainty and of their relationships and allows us to back or question assertions from the literature

A structured argumentation framework for detaching conditional obligations

We present a general formal argumentation system for dealing with the detachment of conditional obligations. Given a set of facts, constraints, and conditional obligations, we answer the question whether an unconditional obligation is detachable by considering reasons for and against its detachment. For the evaluation of arguments in favor of detaching obligations we use a Dung-style argumentation-theoretical semantics. We illustrate the modularity of the general framework by considering some extensions, and we compare the framework to some related approaches from the literature.Comment: This is our submission to DEON 2016, including the technical appendi

Reasoning by Cases in Structured Argumentation

We extend the $ASPIC^+$ framework for structured argumentation so as to allow applications of the reasoning by cases inference scheme for defeasible arguments. Given an argument with conclusion `$A$ or $B$', an argument based on $A$ with conclusion $C$, and an argument based on $B$ with conclusion $C$, we allow the construction of an argument with conclusion $C$. We show how our framework leads to different results than other approaches in non-monotonic logic for dealing with disjunctive information, such as disjunctive default theory or approaches based on the OR-rule (which allows to derive a defeasible rule `If ($A$ or $B$) then $C$', given two defeasible rules `If $A$ then $C$' and `If $B$ then $C$'). We raise new questions regarding the subtleties of reasoning defeasibly with disjunctive information, and show that its formalization is more intricate than one would presume.Comment: Proceedings of SAC/KRR 201