Probabilistic Argumentation with Epistemic Extensions and Incomplete Information

Abstract argumentation offers an appealing way of representing and evaluating arguments and counterarguments. This approach can be enhanced by a probability assignment to each argument. There are various interpretations that can be ascribed to this assignment. In this paper, we regard the assignment as denoting the belief that an agent has that an argument is justifiable, i.e., that both the premises of the argument and the derivation of the claim of the argument from its premises are valid. This leads to the notion of an epistemic extension which is the subset of the arguments in the graph that are believed to some degree (which we defined as the arguments that have a probability assignment greater than 0.5). We consider various constraints on the probability assignment. Some constraints correspond to standard notions of extensions, such as grounded or stable extensions, and some constraints give us new kinds of extensions

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

Representing and reasoning about arguments mined from texts and dialogues

International audienceThis paper presents a target language for representing arguments mined from natural language. The key features are the connection between possible reasons and possible claims and recursive embedding of such connections. Given a base of these arguments and counterarguments mined from texts or dialogues, we want be able combine them, deconstruct them, and to analyse them (for instance to check whether the set is inconsistent). To address these needs, we propose a formal language for representing reasons and claims, and a framework for inferencing with the arguments and counterarguments in this formal language

Stroke-related Changes in Neuromuscular Fatigue of the Hip Flexors and Functional Implications

Objective: The aim of this study was to compare stroke-related changes in hip flexor neuromuscular fatigue of the paretic leg during a sustained isometric submaximal contraction with those of the nonparetic leg and controls and to correlate fatigue with clinical measures of function. Design: Hip torques were measured during a fatiguing hip flexion contraction at 20% of the hip flexion maximal voluntary contraction in the paretic and nonparetic legs of 13 people with chronic stroke and 10 age-matched controls. In addition, the participants with stroke performed a fatiguing contraction of the paretic leg at the absolute torque equivalent to 20% maximal voluntary contraction of the nonparetic leg and were tested for self-selected walking speed (10-m Walk Test) and balance (Berg). Results: When matching the nonparetic target torque, the paretic hip flexors had a shorter time to task failure compared with the nonparetic leg and controls (P \u3c 0.05). The time to failure of the paretic leg was inversely correlated with the reduction of hip flexion maximal voluntary contraction torque. Self-selected walking speed was correlated with declines in torque and steadiness. Berg-Balance scores were inversely correlated with the force fluctuation amplitude. Conclusions: Fatigue and precision of contraction are correlated with walking function and balance after stroke

Impact of Argument Type and Concerns in Argumentation with a Chatbot

Conversational agents, also known as chatbots, are versatile tools that have the potential of being used in dialogical argumentation. They could possibly be deployed in tasks such as persuasion for behaviour change (e.g. persuading people to eat more fruit, to take regular exercise, etc.) However, to achieve this, there is a need to develop methods for acquiring appropriate arguments and counterargument that reflect both sides of the discussion. For instance, to persuade someone to do regular exercise, the chatbot needs to know counterarguments that the user might have for not doing exercise. To address this need, we present methods for acquiring arguments and counterarguments, and importantly, meta-level information that can be useful for deciding when arguments can be used during an argumentation dialogue. We evaluate these methods in studies with participants and show how harnessing these methods in a chatbot can make it more persuasive

Synoptic/planetary-scale interactions and blocking over the North Atlantic Ocean

One segment of work in the past year focused on the diagnosis of a major blocking anticyclone and its interacting synoptic scale circulations that occurred during January 1979 over the North Atlantic Ocean. Another segment focused on the diagnosis of a second explosive cyclone development that occurred over the southeastern United States during the time of block formation. The diagnoses were accomplished using the diagnostic relationship known as the Zwack-Okossi (Z-O) development equation. Results indicate that in both cyclone cases the development occurred as a result of the favorable influence of positive vorticity advection, warm air advection, and latent heat release and ceased when one or more of these influences diminished. The advantages of the Z-O equation are described