346 research outputs found
The Equational Approach to CF2 Semantics
We introduce a family of new equational semantics for argumentation networks
which can handle odd and even loops in a uniform manner. We offer one version
of equational semantics which is equivalent to CF2 semantics, and a better
version which gives the same results as traditional Dung semantics for even
loops but can still handle odd loops.Comment: 36 pages, version dated 15 February 201
Probabilistic Argumentation. An Equational Approach
There is a generic way to add any new feature to a system. It involves 1)
identifying the basic units which build up the system and 2) introducing the
new feature to each of these basic units.
In the case where the system is argumentation and the feature is
probabilistic we have the following. The basic units are: a. the nature of the
arguments involved; b. the membership relation in the set S of arguments; c.
the attack relation; and d. the choice of extensions.
Generically to add a new aspect (probabilistic, or fuzzy, or temporal, etc)
to an argumentation network can be done by adding this feature to each
component a-d. This is a brute-force method and may yield a non-intuitive or
meaningful result.
A better way is to meaningfully translate the object system into another
target system which does have the aspect required and then let the target
system endow the aspect on the initial system. In our case we translate
argumentation into classical propositional logic and get probabilistic
argumentation from the translation.
Of course what we get depends on how we translate.
In fact, in this paper we introduce probabilistic semantics to abstract
argumentation theory based on the equational approach to argumentation
networks. We then compare our semantics with existing proposals in the
literature including the approaches by M. Thimm and by A. Hunter. Our
methodology in general is discussed in the conclusion
Equilibrium States in Numerical Argumentation Networks
Given an argumentation network with initial values to the arguments, we look
for algorithms which can yield extensions compatible with such initial values.
We find that the best way of tackling this problem is to offer an iteration
formula that takes the initial values and the attack relation and iterates a
sequence of intermediate values that eventually converges leading to an
extension. The properties surrounding the application of the iteration formula
and its connection with other numerical and non-numerical techniques proposed
by others are thoroughly investigated in this paper
Introducing Equational Semantics for Argumentation Networks
This paper provides equational semantics for Dung’s argumentation
networks. The network nodes get numerical values in [0,1], and are supposed
to satisfy certain equations. The solutions to these equations correspond to the
“extensions” of the network.
This approach is very general and includes the Caminada labelling as a special
case, as well as many other so-called network extensions, support systems, higher
level attacks, Boolean networks, dependence on time, etc, etc.
The equational approach has its conceptual roots in the 19th century following
the algebraic equational approach to logic by George Boole, Louis Couturat and
Ernst Schroeder
Theory of Semi-Instantiation in Abstract Argumentation
We study instantiated abstract argumentation frames of the form ,
where is an abstract argumentation frame and where the arguments of
are instantiated by as well formed formulas of a well known logic,
for example as Boolean formulas or as predicate logic formulas or as modal
logic formulas. We use the method of conceptual analysis to derive the
properties of our proposed system. We seek to define the notion of complete
extensions for such systems and provide algorithms for finding such extensions.
We further develop a theory of instantiation in the abstract, using the
framework of Boolean attack formations and of conjunctive and disjunctive
attacks. We discuss applications and compare critically with the existing
related literature
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
An Imprecise Probability Approach for Abstract Argumentation based on Credal Sets
Some abstract argumentation approaches consider that arguments have a degree
of uncertainty, which impacts on the degree of uncertainty of the extensions
obtained from a abstract argumentation framework (AAF) under a semantics. In
these approaches, both the uncertainty of the arguments and of the extensions
are modeled by means of precise probability values. However, in many real life
situations the exact probabilities values are unknown and sometimes there is a
need for aggregating the probability values of different sources. In this
paper, we tackle the problem of calculating the degree of uncertainty of the
extensions considering that the probability values of the arguments are
imprecise. We use credal sets to model the uncertainty values of arguments and
from these credal sets, we calculate the lower and upper bounds of the
extensions. We study some properties of the suggested approach and illustrate
it with an scenario of decision making.Comment: 8 pages, 2 figures, Accepted in The 15th European Conference on
Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty (ECSQARU
2019
- …