A principled approach to the implementation of argumentation models

Argumentation theory combines philosophical concepts and computational models to deliver a practical approach to reasoning that handles uncertain information and possibly conflicting viewpoints. This paper focuses on the structured approach to argumentation that incorporates domain specific knowledge and argumentation schemes. There is a lack of implementations and implementation methods for most structured models. This paper shows how taking a principled approach, using the programming language Haskell, helps addressing this problem. We construct a framework for developing structured argumentation models and translations between models (given intertranslatability of models). We furthermore provide a methodology to quickly test and formally prove desirable properties of such implementations using a theorem prover. We demonstrate our approach on the Carneades argumentation model and Dung's abstract argumentation frameworks, implementing both the models and a translation from Carneades into AFs. We then provide implementations of correspondence properties and an initial formalisation of Dung's AFs into a theorem prover. The final result is a verified pipeline from the structured model Carneades into existing efficient SAT-based implementations of Dung's AFs

A framework for relating, implementing and verifying argumentation models and their translations

Computational argumentation theory deals with the formalisation of argument structure, conflict between arguments and domain-specific constructs, such as proof standards, epistemic probabilities or argument schemes. However, despite these practical components, there is a lack of implementations and implementation methods available for most structured models of argumentation and translations between them. This thesis addresses this problem, by constructing a general framework for relating, implementing and formally verifying argumentation models and translations between them, drawing from dependent type theory and the Curry-Howard correspondence. The framework provides mathematical tools and programming methodologies to implement argumentation models, allowing programmers and argumentation theorists to construct implementations that are closely related to the mathematical definitions. It furthermore provides tools that, without much effort on the programmer's side, can automatically construct counter-examples to desired properties, while finally providing methodologies that can prove formal correctness of the implementation in a theorem prover. The thesis consists of various use cases that demonstrate the general approach of the framework. The Carneades argumentation model, Dung's abstract argumentation frameworks and a translation between them, are implemented in the functional programming language Haskell. Implementations of formal properties of the translation are provided together with a formalisation of AFs in the theorem prover, Agda. The result is a verified pipeline, from the structured model Carneades into existing efficient SAT-based implementations of Dung's AFs. Finally, the ASPIC+ model for argumentation is generalised to incorporate content orderings, weight propagation and argument accrual. The framework is applied to provide a translation from this new model into Dung's AFs, together with a complete implementation

A framework for relating, implementing and verifying argumentation models and their translations

Computational argumentation theory deals with the formalisation of argument structure, conflict between arguments and domain-specific constructs, such as proof standards, epistemic probabilities or argument schemes. However, despite these practical components, there is a lack of implementations and implementation methods available for most structured models of argumentation and translations between them. This thesis addresses this problem, by constructing a general framework for relating, implementing and formally verifying argumentation models and translations between them, drawing from dependent type theory and the Curry-Howard correspondence. The framework provides mathematical tools and programming methodologies to implement argumentation models, allowing programmers and argumentation theorists to construct implementations that are closely related to the mathematical definitions. It furthermore provides tools that, without much effort on the programmer's side, can automatically construct counter-examples to desired properties, while finally providing methodologies that can prove formal correctness of the implementation in a theorem prover. The thesis consists of various use cases that demonstrate the general approach of the framework. The Carneades argumentation model, Dung's abstract argumentation frameworks and a translation between them, are implemented in the functional programming language Haskell. Implementations of formal properties of the translation are provided together with a formalisation of AFs in the theorem prover, Agda. The result is a verified pipeline, from the structured model Carneades into existing efficient SAT-based implementations of Dung's AFs. Finally, the ASPIC+ model for argumentation is generalised to incorporate content orderings, weight propagation and argument accrual. The framework is applied to provide a translation from this new model into Dung's AFs, together with a complete implementation

Quantifying resilience of humans and other animals

All life requires the capacity to recover from challenges that are as inevitable as they are unpredictable. Understanding this resilience is essential for managing the health of humans and their livestock. It has long been difficult to quantify resilience directly, forcing practitioners to rely on indirect static indicators of health. However, measurements from wearable electronics and other sources now allow us to analyze the dynamics of physiology and behavior with unsurpassed resolution. The resulting flood of data coincides with the emergence of novel analytical tools for estimating resilience from the pattern of micro-recoveries observed in natural time series. Such dynamic indicators of resilience (DIORs) may be used to monitor the risk of systemic failure across systems ranging from organs to entire organisms. These tools invite a fundamental rethink of our approach to the adaptive management of health and resilience

Tools for the implementation of argumentation models

The structured approach to argumentation has seen a surge of models, introducing a multitude of ways to deal with the formalisation of arguments. However, while the development of the mathematical models have flourished, the actual implementations and development of methods for implementation of these models have been lagging behind. This paper attempts to alleviate this problem by providing methods that simplify implementation, i.e. we demonstrate how the functional programming language Haskell can naturally express mathematical definitions and sketch how a theorem prover can verify this implementation. Furthermore, we provide methods to streamline the documenting of code, showing how literate programming allows the implementer to write formal definition, implementation and documentation in one file. All code has been made publicly available and reusable

Tools for the implementation of argumentation

model

verification of

an