147 research outputs found
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
EMIL: Extracting Meaning from Inconsistent Language
Developments in formal and computational theories of argumentation reason with inconsistency. Developments in Computational Linguistics extract arguments from large textual corpora. Both developments head in the direction of automated processing and reasoning with inconsistent, linguistic knowledge so as to explain and justify arguments in a humanly accessible form. Yet, there is a gap between the coarse-grained, semi-structured knowledge-bases of computational theories of argumentation and fine-grained, highly-structured inferences from knowledge-bases derived from natural language. We identify several subproblems which must be addressed in order to bridge the gap. We provide a direct semantics for argumentation. It has attractive properties in terms of expressivity and complexity, enables reasoning by cases, and can be more highly structured. For language processing, we work with an existing controlled natural language (CNL), which interfaces with our computational theory of argumentation; the tool processes natural language input, translates them into a form for automated inference engines, outputs argument extensions, then generates natural language statements. The key novel adaptation incorporates the defeasible expression ‘it is usual that’. This is an important, albeit incremental, step to incorporate linguistic expressions of defeasibility. Overall, the novel contribution of the paper is an integrated, end-to-end argumentation system which bridges between automated defeasible reasoning and a natural language interface. Specific novel contributions are the theory of ‘direct semantics’, motivations for our theory, results with respect to the direct semantics, an implementation, experimental results, the tie between the formalisation and the CNL, the introduction into a CNL of a natural language expression of defeasibility, and an ‘engineering’ approach to fine-grained argument analysis
In memoriam Douglas N. Walton: the influence of Doug Walton on AI and law
Doug Walton, who died in January 2020, was a prolific author whose work in informal logic and argumentation had a profound influence on Artificial Intelligence, including Artificial Intelligence and Law. He was also very interested in interdisciplinary work, and a frequent and generous collaborator. In this paper seven leading researchers in AI and Law, all past programme chairs of the International Conference on AI and Law who have worked with him, describe his influence on their work
On the equivalence between logic programming semantics and argumentation semantics
This work has been supported by the National Research Fund, Luxembourg (LAAMI project), by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC, UK), grant Ref. EP/J012084/1 (SAsSy project), by CNPq (Universal 2012 – Proc. 473110/2012-1), and by CNPq/CAPES (Casadinho/PROCAD 2011).Peer reviewedPreprin
Rationality postulates: applying argumentation theory for non-monotonic reasoning
The current book chapter examines how to apply Dung’s
theory of abstract argumentation to define meaningful forms of nonmonotonic
inference. The idea is that arguments are constructed using
strict and defeasible inference rules, and that it is then examined
how these arguments attack (or defeat) each other. The thus defined
argumentation framework provides the basis for applying Dung-style semantics,
yielding a number of extensions of arguments. As each of the
constructed arguments has a conclusion, an extension of arguments has
an associated extension of conclusions. It are these extensions of conclusions
that we are interested in. In particular, we ask ourselves whether
each of these extensions is (1) consistent, (2) closed under the strict inference
rules and (3) free from undesired interference. We examine the
current generation of techniques to satisfy these properties, and identify
some research issues that are yet to be dealt with
- …