Collective Argumentation: The Case of Aggregating Support-Relations of
Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2106.11496v1
- Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2021 02:45:10 GMT
- Title: Collective Argumentation: The Case of Aggregating Support-Relations of
Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks
- Authors: Weiwei Chen (Institute of Logic and Cognition and Department of
Philosophy, Sun Yat-sen University)
- Abstract summary: We analyze what semantic properties of bipolar argumentation frameworks can be preserved by aggregation rules.
In this paper, we assume that under bipolar argumentation frameworks, individuals are equipped with a set of arguments and a set of attacks between arguments.
- Score: 0.0
- License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
- Abstract: In many real-life situations that involve exchanges of arguments, individuals
may differ on their assessment of which supports between the arguments are in
fact justified, i.e., they put forward different support-relations. When
confronted with such situations, we may wish to aggregate individuals'
argumentation views on support-relations into a collective view, which is
acceptable to the group. In this paper, we assume that under bipolar
argumentation frameworks, individuals are equipped with a set of arguments and
a set of attacks between arguments, but with possibly different
support-relations. Using the methodology in social choice theory, we analyze
what semantic properties of bipolar argumentation frameworks can be preserved
by aggregation rules during the aggregation of support-relations.
Related papers
- A Methodology for Gradual Semantics for Structured Argumentation under Incomplete Information [15.717458041314194]
We provide a novel methodology for obtaining gradual semantics for structured argumentation frameworks.
Our methodology accommodates incomplete information about arguments' premises.
We demonstrate the potential of our approach by introducing two different instantiations of the methodology.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-10-29T16:38:35Z) - Overview of PerpectiveArg2024: The First Shared Task on Perspective Argument Retrieval [56.66761232081188]
We present a novel dataset covering demographic and socio-cultural (socio) variables, such as age, gender, and political attitude, representing minority and majority groups in society.
We find substantial challenges in incorporating perspectivism, especially when aiming for personalization based solely on the text of arguments without explicitly providing socio profiles.
While we bootstrap perspective argument retrieval, further research is essential to optimize retrieval systems to facilitate personalization and reduce polarization.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-07-29T03:14:57Z) - 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) - Semi-Abstract Value-Based Argumentation Framework [0.0]
Phan Minh Dung proposed abstract argumentation framework, which models argumentation using directed graphs where structureless arguments are the nodes and attacks among the arguments are the edges.
This thesis showcases two such extensions -- value-based argumentation framework by Trevor Bench-Capon (2002) and semi-abstract argumentation framework by Esther Anna Corsi and Christian Ferm"
The contribution of this thesis is two-fold. Firstly, the new semi-abstract value-based argumentation framework is introduced. This framework maps propositional formulae associated with individual arguments to a set of ordered values.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-09-25T13:10:56Z) - Some Options for Instantiation of Bipolar Argument Graphs with Deductive
Arguments [4.111899441919164]
A bipolar argument graph is a directed graph where each node denotes an argument, and each arc denotes the influence of one argument on another.
In a bipolar argument graph, each argument is atomic and so it has no internal structure.
This paper presents a framework based on the use of logical arguments to instantiate bipolar argument graphs.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-08-08T16:22:27Z) - 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) - 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) - Aggregating Bipolar Opinions (With Appendix) [19.899731557360223]
We use Bipolar Assumption-based Argumentation (ABA) as an all-encompassing formalism for BA under different semantics.
We prove several preservation results, both positive and negative, for relevant properties of Bipolar ABA.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-02-04T20:43:30Z) - Aspect-Controlled Neural Argument Generation [65.91772010586605]
We train a language model for argument generation that can be controlled on a fine-grained level to generate sentence-level arguments for a given topic, stance, and aspect.
Our evaluation shows that our generation model is able to generate high-quality, aspect-specific arguments.
These arguments can be used to improve the performance of stance detection models via data augmentation and to generate counter-arguments.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2020-04-30T20:17:22Z) - The Role of Pragmatic and Discourse Context in Determining Argument
Impact [39.70446357000737]
This paper presents a new dataset to initiate the study of this aspect of argumentation.
It consists of a diverse collection of arguments covering 741 controversial topics and comprising over 47,000 claims.
We propose predictive models that incorporate the pragmatic and discourse context of argumentative claims and show that they outperform models that rely on claim-specific linguistic features for predicting the perceived impact of individual claims within a particular line of argument.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2020-04-06T23:00:37Z)
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.