Representing narrative and testimonial knowledge in sense-making software for crime analysis.

Abstract. In the AVERs sense-making tool for crime analysis different types of information are represented in different ways. More precisely, narrative knowledge is represented in an explanatory direction and testimonial knowledge in an indicative direction. This paper shows that this distinction agrees with the preference of potential users and reduces the number of interpretation errors made by them

Extensions and modifications to explanatory coherence

Thagard’s theory of explanatory coherence (TEC) and its implementation ECHO might be considered as the de facto calculus of explanatory coherence. It is an elaborate framework to compare competing scientific theories. Recently, it has become apparent that TEC is also useful as a tool for the analysis of different scenarios in so-called sense-making systems. To this end, it is expedient to discuss a number of extensions and modifications to TEC. This article proposes a number of extensions and modifications to TEC in the context of sense-making systems. The following topics are discussed: input format, representation of false formulas, representation languages, relaxation methods, schemes of coherence, meta-explanations, scenarios, leaking hypotheses, knowledge acquisition, and contextual explanation. The discussion is detailed enough to carry through changes in existing sense-making systems

Abstract argumentation Systems

AbstractIn this paper, we develop a theory of abstract argumentation systems. An abstract argumentation system is a collection of “defeasible proofs”, called arguments, that is partially ordered by a relation expressing the difference in conclusive force. The prefix “abstract” indicates that the theory is concerned neither with a specification of the underlying language, nor with the development of a subtheory that explains the partial order. An unstructured language, without logical connectives such as negation, makes arguments not (pairwise) inconsistent, but (groupwise) incompatible. Incompatibility and difference in conclusive force cause defeat among arguments. The aim of the theory is to find out which arguments eventually emerge undefeated. These arguments are considered to be in force. Several results are established. The main result is that arguments that are in force are precisely those that are in the limit of a so-called complete argumentation sequence

Eight dialectic benchmarks discussed by two artificial localist disputors

Dispute types can roughly be divided in two classes. One class in which the notion of justification is fundamental, and one in which the notion of opposition is fundamental. Further, for every single dispute type there exist various types of protocols to conduct such a dispute. Some protocols permit local search (a process in which one is allowed to justify claims partially, with the possibility to extend justifications on request later), while other protocols rely on global search (a process in which only entire arguments count as justifications). This paper integrates the two above-mentioned types of dispute with the use of a protocol that permits local search. The locality aspect is relatively new to computer scientists, while the detailed computational elaboration of the approach is relatively new to philosophical logicians. The proposed protocol is demonstrated with the help of eight benchmarks. These benchmarks are centered around the problem that co-concluding arguments sometimes accrue, and sometimes do not