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

A Comparative Study of Ranking-based Semantics for Abstract Argumentation

Argumentation is a process of evaluating and comparing a set of arguments. A way to compare them consists in using a ranking-based semantics which rank-order arguments from the most to the least acceptable ones. Recently, a number of such semantics have been proposed independently, often associated with some desirable properties. However, there is no comparative study which takes a broader perspective. This is what we propose in this work. We provide a general comparison of all these semantics with respect to the proposed properties. That allows to underline the differences of behavior between the existing semantics.Comment: Proceedings of the 30th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-2016), Feb 2016, Phoenix, United State

Ranking-based semantics for argumentation frameworks

International audienceAn argumentation system consists of a set of interacting arguments and a semantics for evaluating them. This paper proposes a new family of semantics which rank-orders arguments from the most acceptable to the weakest one(s). The new semantics enjoy two other main features: i) an attack weakens its target but does not kill it, ii) the number of attackers has a great impact on the acceptability of an argument.We start by proposing a set of rational postulates that such semantics could satisfy, then construct various semantics that enjoy them

Stratified Labelings for Abstract Argumentation

We introduce stratified labelings as a novel semantical approach to abstract argumentation frameworks. Compared to standard labelings, stratified labelings provide a more fine-grained assessment of the controversiality of arguments using ranks instead of the usual labels in, out, and undecided. We relate the framework of stratified labelings to conditional logic and, in particular, to the System Z ranking functions

A Non-Prototypical Perspective of Transitivity: Evidence-based Research

The prototype theory on transitivity was first developed in the 1970’s as a response to the Aristotelian classical theory. Despite its popularity, it has shortcomings that cannot go unchallenged including the existence of fuzzy boundaries and problems related to graded categorization. This study thus sought to refute the prototype perspective by highlighting its weaknesses by providing counter-evidence. It employed a thematic analysis methodology where 8 main sources were analyzed to find out the weaknesses of the prototypical theory and refuting their claims through empirically based counter-arguments. The thematic analysis method was important as the emergent themes directly provided answers to the research questions. The study points out that the prototype category does not solve the transitivity problem, and in fact complicates it. Due to the fact that it is constrained, the prototype category has no ultimate explanatory power. In contrast, the research is able to demonstrate the strong explanatory power of classical category theory. The implication of the study is that, to successfully falsify the prototypical transitivity is significant in that it goes against conventional thought. This argument against the prototype theory is a breakthrough and innovative, providing food for thought for linguists all across the world

Normative Conditional Reasoning as a Fragment of HOL

We report some results regarding the mechanization of normative (preference-based) conditional reasoning. Our focus is on Aqvist's system E for conditional obligation (and its extensions). Our mechanization is achieved via a shallow semantical embedding in Isabelle/HOL. We consider two possible uses of the framework. The first one is as a tool for meta-reasoning about the considered logic. We employ it for the automated verification of deontic correspondences (broadly conceived) and related matters, analogous to what has been previously achieved for the modal logic cube. The second use is as a tool for assessing ethical arguments. We provide a computer encoding of a well-known paradox in population ethics, Parfit's repugnant conclusion. Whether the presented encoding increases or decreases the attractiveness and persuasiveness of the repugnant conclusion is a question we would like to pass on to philosophy and ethics.Comment: 22 pages, 28 figures, 3 table