A probabilistic analysis of argument cogency

This paper offers a probabilistic treatment of the conditions for argument cogency as endorsed in informal logic: acceptability, relevance, and sufficiency. Treating a natural language argument as a reason-claim-complex, our analysis identifies content features of defeasible argument on which the RSA conditions depend, namely: change in the commitment to the reason, the reason’s sensitivity and selectivity to the claim, one’s prior commitment to the claim, and the contextually determined thresholds of acceptability for reasons and for claims. Results contrast with, and may indeed serve to correct, the informal understanding and applications of the RSA criteria concerning their conceptual dependence, their function as update-thresholds, and their status as obligatory rather than permissive norms, but also show how these formal and informal normative approachs can in fact align

Cognitive constraints and island effects

Competence-based theories of island effects play a central role in generative grammar, yet the graded nature of many syntactic islands has never been properly accounted for. Categorical syntactic accounts of island effects have persisted in spite of a wealth of data suggesting that island effects are not categorical in nature and that nonstructural manipulations that leave island structures intact can radically alter judgments of island violations. We argue here, building on work by Paul Deane, Robert Kluender, and others, that processing factors have the potential to account for this otherwise unexplained variation in acceptability judgments. We report the results of self-paced reading experiments and controlled acceptability studies that explore the relationship between processing costs and judgments of acceptability. In each of the three self-paced reading studies, the data indicate that the processing cost of different types of island violations can be significantly reduced to a degree comparable to that of nonisland filler-gap constructions by manipulating a single nonstructural factor. Moreover, this reduction in processing cost is accompanied by significant improvements in acceptability. This evidence favors the hypothesis that island-violating constructions involve numerous processing pressures that aggregate to drive processing difficulty above a threshold, resulting in unacceptability. We examine the implications of these findings for the grammar of filler-gap dependencies

Stratified Labelings for Abstract Argumentation

We introduce stratified labelings as a novel semantical approach to abstract argumentation frameworks. Compared to standard labelings, stratified labelings provide a more fine-grained assessment of the controversiality of arguments using ranks instead of the usual labels in, out, and undecided. We relate the framework of stratified labelings to conditional logic and, in particular, to the System Z ranking functions

Dealing with Qualitative and Quantitative Features in Legal Domains

In this work, we enrich a formalism for argumentation by including a formal characterization of features related to the knowledge, in order to capture proper reasoning in legal domains. We add meta-data information to the arguments in the form of labels representing quantitative and qualitative data about them. These labels are propagated through an argumentative graph according to the relations of support, conflict, and aggregation between arguments.Comment: arXiv admin note: text overlap with arXiv:1903.0186

Some Supplementaries to The Counting Semantics for Abstract Argumentation

Dung's abstract argumentation framework consists of a set of interacting arguments and a series of semantics for evaluating them. Those semantics partition the powerset of the set of arguments into two classes: extensions and non-extensions. In order to reason with a specific semantics, one needs to take a credulous or skeptical approach, i.e. an argument is eventually accepted, if it is accepted in one or all extensions, respectively. In our previous work \cite{ref-pu2015counting}, we have proposed a novel semantics, called \emph{counting semantics}, which allows for a more fine-grained assessment to arguments by counting the number of their respective attackers and defenders based on argument graph and argument game. In this paper, we continue our previous work by presenting some supplementaries about how to choose the damaging factor for the counting semantics, and what relationships with some existing approaches, such as Dung's classical semantics, generic gradual valuations. Lastly, an axiomatic perspective on the ranking semantics induced by our counting semantics are presented.Comment: 8 pages, 3 figures, ICTAI 201

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

Processing linguistic complexity and grammaticality in the left frontal cortex

1