A principled approach to the implementation of argumentation models

Argumentation theory combines philosophical concepts and computational models to deliver a practical approach to reasoning that handles uncertain information and possibly conflicting viewpoints. This paper focuses on the structured approach to argumentation that incorporates domain specific knowledge and argumentation schemes. There is a lack of implementations and implementation methods for most structured models. This paper shows how taking a principled approach, using the programming language Haskell, helps addressing this problem. We construct a framework for developing structured argumentation models and translations between models (given intertranslatability of models). We furthermore provide a methodology to quickly test and formally prove desirable properties of such implementations using a theorem prover. We demonstrate our approach on the Carneades argumentation model and Dung's abstract argumentation frameworks, implementing both the models and a translation from Carneades into AFs. We then provide implementations of correspondence properties and an initial formalisation of Dung's AFs into a theorem prover. The final result is a verified pipeline from the structured model Carneades into existing efficient SAT-based implementations of Dung's AFs

CARBON a Web application and a RESTful API for argumentation

This thesis documents the development of Collaborative Argumentation Brought Online (CARBON). Collaborative Argumentation Brought Online (CARBON) aims to make abstract dialectical frameworks (ADFs) available via HTTP by providing a RESTful API and a JavaScript heavy application, that allows to use ADFs in a wiki context on top of that API. The thesis summarizes basic concepts of abstract argumentation using examples of Dung argumentation frameworks (AFs), bipolar argumentation frameworks (BAFs) and abstract dialectical frameworks (ADFs). The advantages of using Haskell as a programming language for server side software are demonstrated by discussing central concepts of functional programming and how these influenced the design or our solutions and simplified the creation of a RESTful API. It is described, how argumentation can be embedded in a wiki, and how a mapping between wiki articles and statements can be established to enable users to create new content while still being able to work with ADFs. To simplify the creation of acceptance conditions, a custom approach to proof standards is presented that allows to translate a bipolar argumentation framework (BAF) with proof standards into a ADF

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

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

Developments in multiscale ONIOM and fragment methods for complex chemical systems

Multiskalenprobleme werden in der Computerchemie immer allgegenwärtiger und bestimmte Klassen solcher Probleme entziehen sich einer effizienten Beschreibung mit den verfügbaren Berechnungsansätzen. In dieser Arbeit wurden effiziente Erweiterungen der Multilayer-Methode ONIOM und von Fragmentmethoden als Lösungsansätze für derartige Probleme entwickelt. Dabei wurde die Kombination von ONIOM und Fragmentmethoden im Rahmen der Multi-Centre Generalised ONIOM entwickelt sowie die eine Multilayer-Variante der Fragment Combinatio Ranges. Außerdem wurden Schemata für elektronische Einbettung derartiger Multilayer-Systeme entwickelt. Der zweite Teil der Arbeit beschreibt die Implementierung im Haskell-Programm "Spicy" und demonstriert Anwendungen derartiger Multiskalen-Methoden

Haskell Gets Argumentative

Abstract. Argumentation theory is an interdisciplinary field studying how conclusions can be reached through logical reasoning. The notion of argument is completely general, including for example legal arguments, scientific arguments, and political arguments. Computational argumentation theory is studied in the context of artificial intelligence, and a number of computational argumentation frameworks have been put forward to date. However, there is a lack of concrete realisations of these frameworks, which hampersresearch andapplications at anumberoflevels. We hypothesise that the lack of suitable domain-specific languages in which to formalise argumentation frameworks is a contributing factor. In this paper, we present a formalisation of a particular computational argumentation framework, Carneades, as a case study with a view to investigate the extent to which functional languages are useful as a means to realising computational argumentation frameworks and reason about them