Stability in Abstract Argumentation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2012.12588v1
• Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2020 10:34:38 GMT
• Title: Stability in Abstract Argumentation
• Authors: Jean-Guy Mailly and Julien Rossit
• Abstract summary: We show how the notion of stability can be translated into reasoning with Argument-Incomplete AFs. We illustrate to what extent this notion can be useful with an application to argument-based negotiation.
• Score: 2.375764121997739
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: The notion of stability in a structured argumentation setup characterizes situations where the acceptance status associated with a given literal will not be impacted by any future evolution of this setup. In this paper, we abstract away from the logical structure of arguments, and we transpose this notion of stability to the context of Dungean argumentation frameworks. In particular, we show how this problem can be translated into reasoning with Argument-Incomplete AFs. Then we provide preliminary complexity results for stability under four prominent semantics, in the case of both credulous and skeptical reasoning. Finally, we illustrate to what extent this notion can be useful with an application to argument-based negotiation.

Related papers

• A Unifying Framework for Learning Argumentation Semantics [50.69905074548764]
  We present a novel framework, which uses an Inductive Logic Programming approach to learn the acceptability semantics for several abstract and structured argumentation frameworks in an interpretable way. Our framework outperforms existing argumentation solvers, thus opening up new future research directions in the area of formal argumentation and human-machine dialogues.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-18T20:18:05Z)
• A Semantic Approach to Decidability in Epistemic Planning (Extended Version) [72.77805489645604]
  We use a novel semantic approach to achieve decidability. Specifically, we augment the logic of knowledge S5$_n$ and with an interaction axiom called (knowledge) commutativity. We prove that our framework admits a finitary non-fixpoint characterization of common knowledge, which is of independent interest.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-28T11:26:26Z)
• Stable Normative Explanations: From Argumentation to Deontic Logic [1.3272510644778104]
  This paper examines how a notion of stable explanation can be expressed in the context of formal argumentation. We show how to build from argumentation neighborhood structures for deontic logic where this notion of explanation can be characterised.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-11T10:26:05Z)
• Integrating Temporality and Causality into Acyclic Argumentation Frameworks using a Transition System [0.5420492913071214]
  We propose a formal method to rewrite the concepts of acyclic abstract argumentation frameworks into an action language. We establish causal relationships between the enunciation of arguments and their consequences, whether direct or indirect. An Answer Set Programming implementation is also proposed, as well as perspectives towards explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-16T10:13:47Z)
• MetaLogic: Logical Reasoning Explanations with Fine-Grained Structure [129.8481568648651]
  We propose a benchmark to investigate models' logical reasoning capabilities in complex real-life scenarios. Based on the multi-hop chain of reasoning, the explanation form includes three main components. We evaluate the current best models' performance on this new explanation form.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-22T16:01:13Z)
• Fuzzy Labeling Semantics for Quantitative Argumentation [0.0]
  We provide a novel quantitative method called fuzzy labeling for fuzzy argumentation systems. A triple of acceptability, rejectability, and undecidability degrees is used to evaluate argument strength.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-15T08:31:36Z)
• Admissibility in Strength-based Argumentation: Complexity and Algorithms (Extended Version with Proofs) [1.5828697880068698]
  We study the adaptation of admissibility-based semantics to Strength-based Argumentation Frameworks (StrAFs) Especially, we show that the strong admissibility defined in the literature does not satisfy a desirable property, namely Dung's fundamental lemma. We propose a translation in pseudo-Boolean constraints for computing (strong and weak) extensions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-05T18:42:04Z)
• A Formalisation of Abstract Argumentation in Higher-Order Logic [77.34726150561087]
  We present an approach for representing abstract argumentation frameworks based on an encoding into classical higher-order logic. This provides a uniform framework for computer-assisted assessment of abstract argumentation frameworks using interactive and automated reasoning tools.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-18T10:45:59Z)
• Exploring Discourse Structures for Argument Impact Classification [48.909640432326654]
  This paper empirically shows that the discourse relations between two arguments along the context path are essential factors for identifying the persuasive power of an argument. We propose DisCOC to inject and fuse the sentence-level structural information with contextualized features derived from large-scale language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-02T06:49:19Z)
• Thinking About Causation: A Causal Language with Epistemic Operators [58.720142291102135]
  We extend the notion of a causal model with a representation of the state of an agent. On the side of the object language, we add operators to express knowledge and the act of observing new information. We provide a sound and complete axiomatization of the logic, and discuss the relation of this framework to causal team semantics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-30T12:16:45Z)
• Technical Report of "Deductive Joint Support for Rational Unrestricted Rebuttal" [1.3706331473063877]
  In ASPIC-style structured argumentation an argument can rebut another argument by attacking its conclusion. In restricted rebuttal, the attacked conclusion must have been arrived at with a defeasible rule. In unrestricted rebuttal, it may have been arrived at with a strict rule, as long as at least one of the antecedents of this strict rule was already defeasible.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-05-07T17:19:18Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.