Introducing a Context-Aware Scheme in an intelligent reasoning process

Several investigations have been developed around analogies based reasoning in different domains, however the analogy between arguments has not been deeply explored. A semiformal way to express these patterns of reasoning were proposed by Walton, through argument schemes from analogy. From this, it is possible to propose computable approximations for comparing arguments. In this paper we introduce a formalism based on the comparison of arguments through descriptors or labels which describes an aspect that the argument refers to. This formalism allows us classifying similar arguments considering the natural descriptors of them, in a specific context.XVII Workshop Agentes y Sistemas Inteligentes (WASI).Red de Universidades con Carreras en Informática (RedUNCI

Introducing a Context-Aware Scheme in an intelligent reasoning process

Several investigations have been developed around analogies based reasoning in different domains, however the analogy between arguments has not been deeply explored. A semiformal way to express these patterns of reasoning were proposed by Walton, through argument schemes from analogy. From this, it is possible to propose computable approximations for comparing arguments. In this paper we introduce a formalism based on the comparison of arguments through descriptors or labels which describes an aspect that the argument refers to. This formalism allows us classifying similar arguments considering the natural descriptors of them, in a specific context.XVII Workshop Agentes y Sistemas Inteligentes (WASI).Red de Universidades con Carreras en Informática (RedUNCI

Justifying Inference to the Best Explanation as a Practical Meta-Syllogism on Dialectical Structures

This article discusses how inference to the best explanation (IBE) can be justified as a practical meta-argument. It is, firstly, justified as a *practical* argument insofar as accepting the best explanation as true can be shown to further a specific aim. And because this aim is a discursive one which proponents can rationally pursue in--and relative to--a complex controversy, namely maximising the robustness of one's position, IBE can be conceived, secondly, as a *meta*-argument. My analysis thus bears a certain analogy to Sellars' well-known justification of inductive reasoning (Sellars 1969); it is based on recently developed theories of complex argumentation (Betz 2010, 2011)

Improving out-of-domain sentiment polarity classification using argumentation

© 2015 IEEE.Domain dependence is an issue that most researchers in corpus-based computational linguistics have faced at one time or another. With this paper we describe a method to perform sentiment polarity classification across domains that utilises Argumentation. We train standard supervised classifiers on a corpus and then attempt to classify instances from a separate corpus, whose contents are concerned with different domains (e.g. sentences from film reviews vs. Tweets). As expected the classifiers perform poorly and we improve upon the use of a simple classifier for out-of-domain classification by taking class labels suggested by classifiers and arguing about their validity. Whenever we can find enough arguments suggesting a mistake has been made by the classifier we change the class label according to what the arguments tell us. By arguing about class labels we are able to improve F1 measures by as much as 14 points, with an average improvement of F1 = 7.33 across all experiments

An Axiomatic Approach to Support in Argumentation

International audienceIn the context of bipolar argumentation (argumentation with two kinds of interaction, attacks and supports), we present an axiomatic approach for taking into account a special interpretation of the support relation, the necessary support. We propose constraints that should be imposed to a bipolar argumentation system using this interpretation. Some of these constraints concern the new attack relations, others concern acceptability. We extend basic Dung’s framework in different ways in order to propose frameworks suitable for encoding these constraints. By the way, we propose a formal study of properties of necessary support

Generating Abstract Arguments: a Natural Language Approach

International audienceMany argumentation tools have been proposed nowadays to support the users in on-line social discussions. However, the main drawback of these tools is that they do not cope with the automatic generation of the arguments from the natural language discussions of the users. In this paper, we propose to use a technique from computational linguistics, namely textual entailment, to generate in an automatic way the abstract arguments from the dialogues. The abstract arguments as well as their relationships are then structured in an argumentation graph to evaluate the dialogue as a whole. The success criteria of the proposed approach is that it is able to represent the dynamics of the dialogues among users allowing to find the use of argumentation natural enough to be really adopted

Inferring Attack Relations for Gradual Semantics

Peer reviewedPublisher PD