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

Syntactic Reasoning with Conditional Probabilities in Deductive Argumentation

Evidence from studies, such as in science or medicine, often corresponds to conditional probability statements. Furthermore, evidence can conflict, in particular when coming from multiple studies. Whilst it is natural to make sense of such evidence using arguments, there is a lack of a systematic formalism for representing and reasoning with conditional probability statements in computational argumentation. We address this shortcoming by providing a formalization of conditional probabilistic argumentation based on probabilistic conditional logic. We provide a semantics and a collection of comprehensible inference rules that give different insights into evidence. We show how arguments constructed from proofs and attacks between them can be analyzed as arguments graphs using dialectical semantics and via the epistemic approach to probabilistic argumentation. Our approach allows for a transparent and systematic way of handling uncertainty that often arises in evidence

Neural-symbolic probabilistic argumentation machines

Neural-symbolic systems combine the strengths of neural networks and symbolic formalisms. In this paper, we introduce a neural-symbolic system which combines restricted Boltzmann machines and probabilistic semi-abstract argumentation. We propose to train networks on argument labellings explaining the data, so that any sampled data outcome is associated with an argument labelling. Argument labellings are integrated as constraints within restricted Boltzmann machines, so that the neural networks are used to learn probabilistic dependencies amongst argument labels. Given a dataset and an argumentation graph as prior knowledge, for every example/case K in the dataset, we use a so-called K- maxconsistent labelling of the graph, and an explanation of case K refers to a K-maxconsistent labelling of the given argumentation graph. The abilities of the proposed system to predict correct labellings were evaluated and compared with standard machine learning techniques. Experiments revealed that such argumentation Boltzmann machines can outperform other classification models, especially in noisy settings

Coalitions of Arguments: An Approach with Constraint Programming

The aggregation of generic items into coalitions leads to the creation of sets of homogenous entities. In this paper we accomplish this for an input set of arguments, and the result is a partition according to distinct lines of thought, i.e., groups of "coherent" ideas. We extend Dung\u27s Argumentation Framework (AF) in order to deal with coalitions of arguments. The initial set of arguments is partitioned into not-intersected subsets. All the found coalitions show the same property inherited by Dung, e.g., all the coalitions in the partition are admissible (or conflict-free, complete, stable): they are generated according to Dung\u27s principles. Each of these coalitions can be assigned to a different agent. We use Soft Constraint Programming as a formal approach to model and solve such partitions in weighted AFs: semiring algebraic structures can be used to model different optimization criteria for the obtained coalitions. Moreover, we implement and solve the presented problem with JaCoP, a Java constraint solver, and we test the code over a small-world network

Explaining Random Forests using Bipolar Argumentation and Markov Networks (Technical Report)

Random forests are decision tree ensembles that can be used to solve a variety of machine learning problems. However, as the number of trees and their individual size can be large, their decision making process is often incomprehensible. In order to reason about the decision process, we propose representing it as an argumentation problem. We generalize sufficient and necessary argumentative explanations using a Markov network encoding, discuss the relevance of these explanations and establish relationships to families of abductive explanations from the literature. As the complexity of the explanation problems is high, we discuss a probabilistic approximation algorithm and present first experimental results.Comment: Accepted for presentation at AAAI 2023. Contains appendix with proofs and additional details about experiment

Argumentation as a practical foundation for decision theory

Imperial Users onl

Syntactic reasoning with conditional probabilities in deductive argumentation

Evidence from studies, such as in science or medicine, often corresponds to conditional probability statements. Furthermore, evidence can conflict, in particular when coming from multiple studies. Whilst it is natural to make sense of such evidence using arguments, there is a lack of a systematic formalism for representing and reasoning with conditional probability statements in computational argumentation. We address this shortcoming by providing a formalization of conditional probabilistic argumentation based on probabilistic conditional logic. We provide a semantics and a collection of comprehensible inference rules that give different insights into evidence. We show how arguments constructed from proofs and attacks between them can be analyzed as arguments graphs using dialectical semantics and via the epistemic approach to probabilistic argumentation. Our approach allows for a transparent and systematic way of handling uncertainty that often arises in evidence

A framework for relating, implementing and verifying argumentation models and their translations

Computational argumentation theory deals with the formalisation of argument structure, conflict between arguments and domain-specific constructs, such as proof standards, epistemic probabilities or argument schemes. However, despite these practical components, there is a lack of implementations and implementation methods available for most structured models of argumentation and translations between them. This thesis addresses this problem, by constructing a general framework for relating, implementing and formally verifying argumentation models and translations between them, drawing from dependent type theory and the Curry-Howard correspondence. The framework provides mathematical tools and programming methodologies to implement argumentation models, allowing programmers and argumentation theorists to construct implementations that are closely related to the mathematical definitions. It furthermore provides tools that, without much effort on the programmer's side, can automatically construct counter-examples to desired properties, while finally providing methodologies that can prove formal correctness of the implementation in a theorem prover. The thesis consists of various use cases that demonstrate the general approach of the framework. The Carneades argumentation model, Dung's abstract argumentation frameworks and a translation between them, are implemented in the functional programming language Haskell. Implementations of formal properties of the translation are provided together with a formalisation of AFs in the theorem prover, Agda. The result is a verified pipeline, from the structured model Carneades into existing efficient SAT-based implementations of Dung's AFs. Finally, the ASPIC+ model for argumentation is generalised to incorporate content orderings, weight propagation and argument accrual. The framework is applied to provide a translation from this new model into Dung's AFs, together with a complete implementation