Joint attacks and accrual in argumentation frameworks

While modelling arguments, it is often useful to represent joint attacks, i.e., cases where multiple arguments jointly attack another (note that this is different from the case where multiple arguments attack another in isolation). Based on this remark, the notion of joint attacks has been proposed as a useful extension of classical Abstract Argumentation Frameworks, and has been shown to constitute a genuine extension in terms of expressive power. In this chapter, we review various works considering the notion of joint attacks from various perspectives, including abstract and structured frameworks. Moreover, we present results detailing the relation among frameworks with joint attacks and classical argumentation frameworks, computational aspects, and applications of joint attacks. Last but not least, we propose a roadmap for future research on the subject, identifying gaps in current research and important research directions.Fil: Bikakis, Antonis. University College London; Estados UnidosFil: Cohen, Andrea. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Bahía Blanca. Instituto de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación. Universidad Nacional del Sur. Departamento de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación. Instituto de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación; ArgentinaFil: Dvoák, Wolfgang. Technische Universitat Wien; AustriaFil: Flouris, Giorgos. Foundation for Research and Technology; GreciaFil: Parsons, Simon. University of Lincoln; Reino Unid

Parameterized aspects of team-based formalisms and logical inference

Parameterized complexity is an interesting subfield of complexity theory that has received a lot of attention in recent years. Such an analysis characterizes the complexity of (classically) intractable problems by pinpointing the computational hardness to some structural aspects of the input. In this thesis, we study the parameterized complexity of various problems from the area of team-based formalisms as well as logical inference. In the context of team-based formalism, we consider propositional dependence logic (PDL). The problems of interest are model checking (MC) and satisfiability (SAT). Peter Lohmann studied the classical complexity of these problems as a part of his Ph.D. thesis proving that both MC and SAT are NP-complete for PDL. This thesis addresses the parameterized complexity of these problems with respect to a wealth of different parameterizations. Interestingly, SAT for PDL boils down to the satisfiability of propositional logic as implied by the downwards closure of PDL-formulas. We propose an interesting satisfiability variant (mSAT) asking for a satisfiable team of size m. The problem mSAT restores the ‘team semantic’ nature of satisfiability for PDL-formulas. We propose another problem (MaxSubTeam) asking for a maximal satisfiable team if a given team does not satisfy the input formula. From the area of logical inference, we consider (logic-based) abduction and argumentation. The problem of interest in abduction (ABD) is to determine whether there is an explanation for a manifestation in a knowledge base (KB). Following Pfandler et al., we also consider two of its variants by imposing additional restrictions over the size of an explanation (ABD and ABD=). In argumentation, our focus is on the argument existence (ARG), relevance (ARG-Rel) and verification (ARG-Check) problems. The complexity of these problems have been explored already in the classical setting, and each of them is known to be complete for the second level of the polynomial hierarchy (except for ARG-Check which is DP-complete) for propositional logic. Moreover, the work by Nord and Zanuttini (resp., Creignou et al.) explores the complexity of these problems with respect to various restrictions over allowed KBs for ABD (ARG). In this thesis, we explore a two-dimensional complexity analysis for these problems. The first dimension is the restrictions over KB in Schaefer’s framework (the same direction as Nord and Zanuttini and Creignou et al.). What differentiates the work in this thesis from an existing research on these problems is that we add another dimension, the parameterization. The results obtained in this thesis are interesting for two reasons. First (from a theoretical point of view), ideas used in our reductions can help in developing further reductions and prove (in)tractability results for related problems. Second (from a practical point of view), the obtained tractability results might help an agent designing an instance of a problem come up with the one for which the problem is tractable

Building bridges for better machines : from machine ethics to machine explainability and back

Be it nursing robots in Japan, self-driving buses in Germany or automated hiring systems in the USA, complex artificial computing systems have become an indispensable part of our everyday lives. Two major challenges arise from this development: machine ethics and machine explainability. Machine ethics deals with behavioral constraints on systems to ensure restricted, morally acceptable behavior; machine explainability affords the means to satisfactorily explain the actions and decisions of systems so that human users can understand these systems and, thus, be assured of their socially beneficial effects. Machine ethics and explainability prove to be particularly efficient only in symbiosis. In this context, this thesis will demonstrate how machine ethics requires machine explainability and how machine explainability includes machine ethics. We develop these two facets using examples from the scenarios above. Based on these examples, we argue for a specific view of machine ethics and suggest how it can be formalized in a theoretical framework. In terms of machine explainability, we will outline how our proposed framework, by using an argumentation-based approach for decision making, can provide a foundation for machine explanations. Beyond the framework, we will also clarify the notion of machine explainability as a research area, charting its diverse and often confusing literature. To this end, we will outline what, exactly, machine explainability research aims to accomplish. Finally, we will use all these considerations as a starting point for developing evaluation criteria for good explanations, such as comprehensibility, assessability, and fidelity. Evaluating our framework using these criteria shows that it is a promising approach and augurs to outperform many other explainability approaches that have been developed so far.DFG: CRC 248: Center for Perspicuous Computing; VolkswagenStiftung: Explainable Intelligent System

MaxSAT Evaluation 2017 : Solver and Benchmark Descriptions

Peer reviewe

For "Most" People

This thesis is a rhetorical discourse analysis of FrP and party leader Sylvi Listhaug’s use of right-wing populist discursive strategies and rhetorical tools in Facebook posts between 08.05.21-08.05.23. This approach is used to understand how they are using populist discursive strategies on social media and to which degree social media as a platform can enable populist rhetoric and function to influence and manipulate the masses. The theoretical approach to populism in this thesis bases itself in the discursive approaches of Laclau and Wodak and emphasises how the homogenising effects of empty and floating signifiers appear in the discursive strategies characteristic of right-wing populists and strengthen an equivalential chain. The data material that is analysed consists of three posts from Listhaug’s personal Facebook account and three posts from FrP’s main party account, selected out of two data sets which gathered a total of 657 posts. Through a rhetorical discourse analysis, we identify discursive strategies employed by these two actors and analyse how rhetorical tools function to strengthen these. In the discussion we then establish that Listhaug and FrP both make exemplary use of both discursive strategies and the rhetorical tools and have a highly populistic mode of articulation in the expression of their equivalential chain. On social media their discourse functions to unite its voters using empty and floating signifiers while forming an antagonistic relationship with the “elite”, oppositional parties, and the “others”, immigrants mainly of Muslim origin and those who do not conform with Norwegian tradition. This discourse is strengthened by their appeal to emotions, pathos, to strengthen both their credibility, ethos, and allow them to utilise common-sense lines of argumentation, logos. Connected to their exemplary use of discursive strategies and rhetorical tools, we identify Listhaug being particularly prone to the accusation that she is using propaganda. Propaganda here in terms of manipulating the masses through language. In the context of this case, social media could therefore be said to enable populist rhetoric to a degree, but it is not without its limitations bound in the existence of discourse and challenging offline as well as online