Broadening Label-based Argumentation Semantics with May-Must Scales (May-Must Argumentation)
Nagoya Institute of Technology（名古屋工业大学）
Ryuta Arisaka, Takayuki Ito
备注：
Changes made to the previous version. 1. Definitions of satisfaction of may/must conditions have been simplified. 2. Corrected the definition of a maximally designating labelling which is now called a maximally proper labelling instead
The semantics as to which set of arguments in a given argumentation graph may be acceptable (acceptability semantics) can be characterised in a few different ways. Among them, labelling-based approach allows for concise and flexible determination of acceptability statuses of arguments through assignment of a label indicating acceptance, rejection, or undecided to each argument. In this work, we contemplate a way of broadening it by accommodating may- and must- conditions for an argument to be accepted or rejected, as determined by the number(s) of rejected and accepted attacking arguments. We show that the broadened label-based semantics can be used to express more mild indeterminacy than inconsistency for acceptability judgement when, for example, it may be the case that an argument is accepted and when it may also be the case that it is rejected. We identify that finding which conditions a labelling satisfies for every argument can be an undecidable problem, which has an unfavourable implication to existence of a semantics. We propose to address this problem by enforcing a labelling to maximally respect the conditions, while keeping the rest that would necessarily cause non-termination labelled undecided. Several semantics will be presented and the relation among them will be noted. Towards the end, we will touch upon possible research directions that can be pursued further.
CSIRO（联邦科学与工业研究组织）；University of Brescia（布雷西亚大学）；Chinese Academy of Sciences（中国科学院）；University of Bologna（博洛尼亚大学）；European University Institute（欧洲大学学院）
The combination of argumentation and probability paves the way to new accounts of qualitative and quantitative uncertainty, thereby offering new theoretical and applicative opportunities. Due to a variety of interests, probabilistic argumentation is approached in the literature with different frameworks, pertaining to structured and abstract argumentation, and with respect to diverse types of uncertainty, in particular the uncertainty on the credibility of the premises, the uncertainty about which arguments to consider, and the uncertainty on the acceptance status of arguments or statements. T…
Labelling-based formal argumentation relies on labelling functions that typically assign one of 3 labels to indicate either acceptance, rejection, or else undecided-to-be-either, to each argument. While a classical labelling-based approach applies globally uniform conditions as to how an argument is to be labelled, they can be determined more locally per argument. Abstract dialectical frameworks (ADF) is a well-known argumentation formalism that belongs to this category, offering a greater labelling flexibility. As the size of an argumentation increases in the numbers of arguments and argument…
In this paper, we propose a new method for computing general allocators directly from completeness conditions. A general allocator is an abstraction of all complete labelings for an argumentation framework. Any complete labeling is obtained from a general allocator by assigning logical constants to variables. We proved the existence of the general allocators in our previous work. However, the construction requires us to enumerate all complete labelings for the framework, which makes the computation prohibitively slow. The method proposed in this paper enables us to compute general allocators w…
Advanced Computation Laboratory（高级计算实验室）；Centre for Cognitive Science（认知科学中心）；Imperial Cancer Research Fund（帝国癌症研究基金）；University of Roskilde（罗斯基勒大学）
Argumentation is the process of constructing arguments about propositions, and the assignment of statements of confidence to those propositions based on the nature and relative strength of their supporting arguments. The process is modelled as a labelled deductive system, in which propositions are doubly labelled with the grounds on which they are based and a representation of the confidence attached to the argument. Argument construction is captured by a generalized argument consequence relation based on the ^,--fragment of minimal logic. Arguments can be aggregated by a variety of numeric an…
The matrices and their sub-blocks are introduced into the study of determining various extensions in the sense of Dung's theory of argumentation frameworks. It is showed that each argumentation framework has its matrix representations, and the core semantics defined by Dung can be characterized by specific sub-blocks of the matrix. Furthermore, the elementary permutations of a matrix are employed by which an efficient matrix approach for finding out all extensions under a given semantics is obtained. Different from several established approaches, such as the graph labelling algorithm, Constrai…
University of Brescia（布雷西亚大学）；Cardiff University（卡迪夫大学）；DEVCOM Army Research Laboratory（DEVCOM陆军研究实验室）；Amazon（亚马逊）
The sixth assessment of the international panel on climate change (IPCC) states that "cumulative net CO2 emissions over the last decade (2010-2019) are about the same size as the 11 remaining carbon budget likely to limit warming to 1.5C (medium confidence)." Such reports directly feed the public discourse, but nuances such as the degree of belief and of confidence are often lost. In this paper, we propose a formal account for allowing such degrees of belief and the associated confidence to be used to label arguments in abstract argumentation settings. Differently from other proposals in proba…
Universidad Nacional del Sur (UNS)（南方国立大学）；Instituto de Ciencias e Ing. de la Computación (ICIC UNS–CONICET)（计算机科学与工程研究所（ICIC UNS-阿根廷国家科学与技术研究理事会））；Universidad Nacional de Santiago del Estero（圣地亚哥-德尔埃斯特罗国立大学）
Argumentation theory is a powerful paradigm that formalizes a type of commonsense reasoning that aims to simulate the human ability to resolve a specific problem in an intelligent manner. A classical argumentation process takes into account only the properties related to the intrinsic logical soundness of an argument in order to determine its acceptability status. However, these properties are not always the only ones that matter to establish the argument's acceptability---there exist other qualities, such as strength, weight, social votes, trust degree, relevance level, and certainty degree, …
Inst. for Computer Science and Eng. (UNS-CONICET)（计算机科学与工程研究所（南方国立大学-阿根廷国家科学技术研究委员会））；Universidad Nacional del Sur（南方国立大学）；Universidad Nacional de Santiago del Estero（圣地亚哥德尔埃斯特罗国立大学）；University of Bologna（博洛尼亚大学）
In this work, we enrich a formalism for argumentation by including a formal characterization of features related to the knowledge, in order to capture proper reasoning in legal domains. We add meta-data information to the arguments in the form of labels representing quantitative and qualitative data about them. These labels are propagated through an argumentative graph according to the relations of support, conflict, and aggregation between arguments.
Vienna University of Technology（维也纳技术大学）；Institute of Information Systems（信息系统研究所）
One of the most prominent tools for abstract argumentation is the Dung's framework, AF for short. It is accompanied by a variety of semantics including grounded, complete, preferred and stable. Although powerful, AFs have their shortcomings, which led to development of numerous enrichments. Among the most general ones are the abstract dialectical frameworks, also known as the ADFs. They make use of the so-called acceptance conditions to represent arbitrary relations. This level of abstraction brings not only new challenges, but also requires addressing existing problems in the field. One of th…
