Empirical Evaluation of Abstract Argumentation: Supporting the Need for Bipolar and Probabilistic Approaches

In dialogical argumentation it is often assumed that the involved parties always correctly identify the intended statements posited by each other, realize all of the associated relations, conform to the three acceptability states (accepted, rejected, undecided), adjust their views when new and correct information comes in, and that a framework handling only attack relations is sufficient to represent their opinions. Although it is natural to make these assumptions as a starting point for further research, removing them or even acknowledging that such removal should happen is more challenging for some of these concepts than for others. Probabilistic argumentation is one of the approaches that can be harnessed for more accurate user modelling. The epistemic approach allows us to represent how much a given argument is believed by a given person, offering us the possibility to express more than just three agreement states. It is equipped with a wide range of postulates, including those that do not make any restrictions concerning how initial arguments should be viewed, thus potentially being more adequate for handling beliefs of the people that have not fully disclosed their opinions in comparison to Dung's semantics. The constellation approach can be used to represent the views of different people concerning the structure of the framework we are dealing with, including cases in which not all relations are acknowledged or when they are seen differently than intended. Finally, bipolar argumentation frameworks can be used to express both positive and negative relations between arguments. In this paper we describe the results of an experiment in which participants judged dialogues in terms of agreement and structure. We compare our findings with the aforementioned assumptions as well as with the constellation and epistemic approaches to probabilistic argumentation and bipolar argumentation

Conflict-Free Coloring Made Stronger

In FOCS 2002, Even et al. showed that any set of $n$ discs in the plane can be Conflict-Free colored with a total of at most $O(\log n)$ colors. That is, it can be colored with $O(\log n)$ colors such that for any (covered) point $p$ there is some disc whose color is distinct from all other colors of discs containing $p$. They also showed that this bound is asymptotically tight. In this paper we prove the following stronger results: \begin{enumerate} \item [(i)] Any set of $n$ discs in the plane can be colored with a total of at most $O(k \log n)$ colors such that (a) for any point $p$ that is covered by at least $k$ discs, there are at least $k$ distinct discs each of which is colored by a color distinct from all other discs containing $p$ and (b) for any point $p$ covered by at most $k$ discs, all discs covering $p$ are colored distinctively. We call such a coloring a {\em $k$-Strong Conflict-Free} coloring. We extend this result to pseudo-discs and arbitrary regions with linear union-complexity. \item [(ii)] More generally, for families of $n$ simple closed Jordan regions with union-complexity bounded by $O(n^{1+\alpha})$, we prove that there exists a $k$-Strong Conflict-Free coloring with at most $O(k n^\alpha)$ colors. \item [(iii)] We prove that any set of $n$ axis-parallel rectangles can be $k$-Strong Conflict-Free colored with at most $O(k \log^2 n)$ colors. \item [(iv)] We provide a general framework for $k$-Strong Conflict-Free coloring arbitrary hypergraphs. This framework relates the notion of $k$-Strong Conflict-Free coloring and the recently studied notion of $k$-colorful coloring. \end{enumerate} All of our proofs are constructive. That is, there exist polynomial time algorithms for computing such colorings

New mathematical structures in renormalizable quantum field theories

Computations in renormalizable perturbative quantum field theories reveal mathematical structures which go way beyond the formal structure which is usually taken as underlying quantum field theory. We review these new structures and the role they can play in future developments.Comment: 26p,4figs., Invited Contribution to Annals of Physics, minor typos correcte