Arguing Using Opponent Models

Peer reviewedPostprin

Argument-based Belief in Topological Structures

This paper combines two studies: a topological semantics for epistemic notions and abstract argumentation theory. In our combined setting, we use a topological semantics to represent the structure of an agent's collection of evidence, and we use argumentation theory to single out the relevant sets of evidence through which a notion of beliefs grounded on arguments is defined. We discuss the formal properties of this newly defined notion, providing also a formal language with a matching modality together with a sound and complete axiom system for it. Despite the fact that our agent can combine her evidence in a 'rational' way (captured via the topological structure), argument-based beliefs are not closed under conjunction. This illustrates the difference between an agent's reasoning abilities (i.e. the way she is able to combine her available evidence) and the closure properties of her beliefs. We use this point to argue for why the failure of closure under conjunction of belief should not bear the burden of the failure of rationality.Comment: In Proceedings TARK 2017, arXiv:1707.0825

Modeling time and valuation in structured argumentation frameworks

Temporal Argumentation Frameworks (TAF) represent a recent extension of Dung's abstract argumentation frameworks that consider the temporal availability of arguments. In a TAF, arguments are valid during specific time intervals, called availability intervals, while the attack relation of the framework remains static and permanent in time; thus, in general, when identifying the set of acceptable arguments, the outcome associated with a TAF will vary in time. We introduce an extension of TAF, called Extended Temporal Argumentation Framework (E-TAF), adding the capability of modeling the temporal availability of attacks among arguments, thus modeling special features of arguments varying over time and the possibility that attacks are only available in a given time interval. E-TAF will be enriched by considering Structured Abstract Argumentation, using Dynamic Argumentation Frameworks. The resulting framework, E-TAF∗, provides a suitable model for different time-dependent issues satisfying properties and equivalence results that permit to contrast the expressivity of E-TAF and E-TAF∗ with argumentation based on abstract frameworks. Thus, the main contribution here is to provide an enhanced framework for modeling special features of argumentation varying over time, which are relevant in many real-world situations. The proposal aims at advancing in the integration of time and valuation in the context of argumentation systems as well.Fil: Budan, Maximiliano Celmo David. Universidad Nacional del Sur. Departamento de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de Santiago del Estero. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Tecnologías. Departamento de Matemática; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Bahía Blanca; ArgentinaFil: Gomez Lucero, Mauro Javier. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Bahía Blanca; Argentina. Universidad Nacional del Sur. Departamento de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación; ArgentinaFil: Chesñevar, Carlos Iván. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Bahía Blanca; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de Santiago del Estero. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Tecnologías. Departamento de Matemática; Argentina. Universidad Nacional del Sur. Departamento de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación; ArgentinaFil: Simari, Guillermo Ricardo. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Bahía Blanca; Argentina. Universidad Nacional del Sur. Departamento de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación; Argentin

Probabilistic Reasoning with Abstract Argumentation Frameworks

Abstract argumentation offers an appealing way of representing and evaluating arguments and counterarguments. This approach can be enhanced by considering probability assignments on arguments, allowing for a quantitative treatment of formal argumentation. In this paper, we regard the assignment as denoting the degree of belief that an agent has in an argument being acceptable. While there are various interpretations of this, an example is how it could be applied to a deductive argument. Here, the degree of belief that an agent has in an argument being acceptable is a combination of the degree to which it believes the premises, the claim, and the derivation of the claim from the premises. We consider constraints on these probability assignments, inspired by crisp notions from classical abstract argumentation frameworks and discuss the issue of probabilistic reasoning with abstract argumentation frameworks. Moreover, we consider the scenario when assessments on the probabilities of a subset of the arguments are given and the probabilities of the remaining arguments have to be derived, taking both the topology of the argumentation framework and principles of probabilistic reasoning into account. We generalise this scenario by also considering inconsistent assessments, i.e., assessments that contradict the topology of the argumentation framework. Building on approaches to inconsistency measurement, we present a general framework to measure the amount of conflict of these assessments and provide a method for inconsistency-tolerant reasoning

Subjective Logic and Arguing with Evidence

Peer reviewedPreprin