1,975 research outputs found
Recommended from our members
Value-based argumentation frameworks as neural-symbolic learning systems
While neural networks have been successfully used in a number of machine learning applications, logical languages have been the standard for the representation of argumentative reasoning. In this paper, we establish a relationship between neural networks and argumentation networks, combining reasoning and learning in the same argumentation framework. We do so by presenting a new neural argumentation algorithm, responsible for translating argumentation networks into standard neural networks. We then show a correspondence between the two networks. The algorithm works not only for acyclic argumentation networks, but also for circular networks, and it enables the accrual of arguments through learning as well as the parallel computation of arguments
Abstract Argumentation / Persuasion / Dynamics
The act of persuasion, a key component in rhetoric argumentation, may be
viewed as a dynamics modifier. We extend Dung's frameworks with acts of
persuasion among agents, and consider interactions among attack, persuasion and
defence that have been largely unheeded so far. We characterise basic notions
of admissibilities in this framework, and show a way of enriching them through,
effectively, CTL (computation tree logic) encoding, which also permits
importation of the theoretical results known to the logic into our
argumentation frameworks. Our aim is to complement the growing interest in
coordination of static and dynamic argumentation.Comment: Arisaka R., Satoh K. (2018) Abstract Argumentation / Persuasion /
Dynamics. In: Miller T., Oren N., Sakurai Y., Noda I., Savarimuthu B., Cao
Son T. (eds) PRIMA 2018: Principles and Practice of Multi-Agent Systems.
PRIMA 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 11224. Springer, Cha
Empirical Evaluation of Abstract Argumentation: Supporting the Need for Bipolar and Probabilistic Approaches
In dialogical argumentation it is often assumed that the involved parties
always correctly identify the intended statements posited by each other,
realize all of the associated relations, conform to the three acceptability
states (accepted, rejected, undecided), adjust their views when new and correct
information comes in, and that a framework handling only attack relations is
sufficient to represent their opinions. Although it is natural to make these
assumptions as a starting point for further research, removing them or even
acknowledging that such removal should happen is more challenging for some of
these concepts than for others. Probabilistic argumentation is one of the
approaches that can be harnessed for more accurate user modelling. The
epistemic approach allows us to represent how much a given argument is believed
by a given person, offering us the possibility to express more than just three
agreement states. It is equipped with a wide range of postulates, including
those that do not make any restrictions concerning how initial arguments should
be viewed, thus potentially being more adequate for handling beliefs of the
people that have not fully disclosed their opinions in comparison to Dung's
semantics. The constellation approach can be used to represent the views of
different people concerning the structure of the framework we are dealing with,
including cases in which not all relations are acknowledged or when they are
seen differently than intended. Finally, bipolar argumentation frameworks can
be used to express both positive and negative relations between arguments. In
this paper we describe the results of an experiment in which participants
judged dialogues in terms of agreement and structure. We compare our findings
with the aforementioned assumptions as well as with the constellation and
epistemic approaches to probabilistic argumentation and bipolar argumentation
Joint attacks and accrual in argumentation frameworks
While modelling arguments, it is often useful to represent joint attacks, i.e., cases where multiple arguments jointly attack another (note that this is different from the case where multiple arguments attack another in isolation). Based on this remark, the notion of joint attacks has been proposed as a useful extension of classical Abstract Argumentation Frameworks, and has been shown to constitute a genuine extension in terms of expressive power. In this chapter, we review various works considering the notion of joint attacks from various perspectives, including abstract and structured frameworks. Moreover, we present results detailing the relation among frameworks with joint attacks and classical argumentation frameworks, computational aspects, and applications of joint attacks. Last but not least, we propose a roadmap for future research on the subject, identifying gaps in current research and important research directions.Fil: Bikakis, Antonis. University College London; Estados UnidosFil: Cohen, Andrea. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones CientĂficas y TĂ©cnicas. Centro CientĂfico TecnolĂłgico Conicet - BahĂa Blanca. Instituto de Ciencias e IngenierĂa de la ComputaciĂłn. Universidad Nacional del Sur. Departamento de Ciencias e IngenierĂa de la ComputaciĂłn. Instituto de Ciencias e IngenierĂa de la ComputaciĂłn; ArgentinaFil: DvoĂĄk, Wolfgang. Technische Universitat Wien; AustriaFil: Flouris, Giorgos. Foundation for Research and Technology; GreciaFil: Parsons, Simon. University of Lincoln; Reino Unid
Abstract Argumentation and Answer Set Programming: Two Faces of Nelsonâs Logic
In this work, we show that both logic programming and abstract argumentation frameworks can be interpreted in terms of Nelsonâs constructive logic N4. We do so by formalising, in this logic, two principles that we call noncontradictory inference and strengthened closed world assumption: the first states that no belief can be held based on contradictory evidence while the latter forces both unknown and contradictory evidence to be regarded as false. Using these principles, both logic programming and abstract argumentation frameworks are translated into constructive logic in a modular way and using the object language. Logic programming implication and abstract argumentation supports become, in the translation, a new implication connective following the noncontradictory inference principle. Attacks are then represented by combining this new implication with strong negation. Under consideration in Theory and Practice of Logic Programming (TPLP)
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
Extension-based Semantics of Abstract Dialectical Frameworks
One of the most prominent tools for abstract argumentation is the Dung's
framework, AF for short. It is accompanied by a variety of semantics including
grounded, complete, preferred and stable. Although powerful, AFs have their
shortcomings, which led to development of numerous enrichments. Among the most
general ones are the abstract dialectical frameworks, also known as the ADFs.
They make use of the so-called acceptance conditions to represent arbitrary
relations. This level of abstraction brings not only new challenges, but also
requires addressing existing problems in the field. One of the most
controversial issues, recognized not only in argumentation, concerns the
support cycles. In this paper we introduce a new method to ensure acyclicity of
the chosen arguments and present a family of extension-based semantics built on
it. We also continue our research on the semantics that permit cycles and fill
in the gaps from the previous works. Moreover, we provide ADF versions of the
properties known from the Dung setting. Finally, we also introduce a
classification of the developed sub-semantics and relate them to the existing
labeling-based approaches.Comment: To appear in the Proceedings of the 15th International Workshop on
Non-Monotonic Reasoning (NMR 2014
An Axiomatic Approach to Support in Argumentation
International audienceIn the context of bipolar argumentation (argumentation with two kinds of interaction, attacks and supports), we present an axiomatic approach for taking into account a special interpretation of the support relation, the necessary support. We propose constraints that should be imposed to a bipolar argumentation system using this interpretation. Some of these constraints concern the new attack relations, others concern acceptability. We extend basic Dungâs framework in different ways in order to propose frameworks suitable for encoding these constraints. By the way, we propose a formal study of properties of necessary support
Arguing Using Opponent Models
Peer reviewedPostprin
Change in abstract bipolar argumentation systems (SUM 2015)
International audienceAn argumentation system can undergo changes (addition or removal of arguments/interactions), particularly in multiagent systems. In this paper, we are interested in dynamics of abstract bipolar argumentation systems, i.e. argumentation systems using two kinds of interaction: attacks and supports. We propose change characterizations that use and extend previous results defined in the case of Dung abstract argumentation systems
- âŠ