Reasoning by Cases in Structured Argumentation

We extend the $ASPIC^+$ framework for structured argumentation so as to allow applications of the reasoning by cases inference scheme for defeasible arguments. Given an argument with conclusion `$A$ or $B$', an argument based on $A$ with conclusion $C$, and an argument based on $B$ with conclusion $C$, we allow the construction of an argument with conclusion $C$. We show how our framework leads to different results than other approaches in non-monotonic logic for dealing with disjunctive information, such as disjunctive default theory or approaches based on the OR-rule (which allows to derive a defeasible rule `If ($A$ or $B$) then $C$', given two defeasible rules `If $A$ then $C$' and `If $B$ then $C$'). We raise new questions regarding the subtleties of reasoning defeasibly with disjunctive information, and show that its formalization is more intricate than one would presume.Comment: Proceedings of SAC/KRR 201

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

Properties of ABA+ for Non-Monotonic Reasoning

We investigate properties of ABA+, a formalism that extends the well studied structured argumentation formalism Assumption-Based Argumentation (ABA) with a preference handling mechanism. In particular, we establish desirable properties that ABA+ semantics exhibit. These pave way to the satisfaction by ABA+ of some (arguably) desirable principles of preference handling in argumentation and nonmonotonic reasoning, as well as non-monotonic inference properties of ABA+ under various semantics.Comment: This is a revised version of the paper presented at the worksho

A structured argumentation framework for detaching conditional obligations

We present a general formal argumentation system for dealing with the detachment of conditional obligations. Given a set of facts, constraints, and conditional obligations, we answer the question whether an unconditional obligation is detachable by considering reasons for and against its detachment. For the evaluation of arguments in favor of detaching obligations we use a Dung-style argumentation-theoretical semantics. We illustrate the modularity of the general framework by considering some extensions, and we compare the framework to some related approaches from the literature.Comment: This is our submission to DEON 2016, including the technical appendi

A Labelling Framework for Probabilistic Argumentation

The combination of argumentation and probability paves the way to new accounts of qualitative and quantitative uncertainty, thereby offering new theoretical and applicative opportunities. Due to a variety of interests, probabilistic argumentation is approached in the literature with different frameworks, pertaining to structured and abstract argumentation, and with respect to diverse types of uncertainty, in particular the uncertainty on the credibility of the premises, the uncertainty about which arguments to consider, and the uncertainty on the acceptance status of arguments or statements. Towards a general framework for probabilistic argumentation, we investigate a labelling-oriented framework encompassing a basic setting for rule-based argumentation and its (semi-) abstract account, along with diverse types of uncertainty. Our framework provides a systematic treatment of various kinds of uncertainty and of their relationships and allows us to back or question assertions from the literature