Intrinsic Argument Strength in Structured Argumentation: a Principled
Approach
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2109.00318v1
- Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2021 11:54:15 GMT
- Title: Intrinsic Argument Strength in Structured Argumentation: a Principled
Approach
- Authors: Jeroen Paul Spaans
- Abstract summary: We study methods for assigning an argument its intrinsic strength, based on the strengths of the premises and inference rules used to form said argument.
We first define a set of principles, which are properties that strength assigning methods might satisfy.
We then propose two such methods and analyse which principles they satisfy.
- Score: 0.0
- License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
- Abstract: Abstract argumentation provides us with methods such as gradual and Dung
semantics with which to evaluate arguments after potential attacks by other
arguments. Some of these methods can take intrinsic strengths of arguments as
input, with which to modulate the effects of attacks between arguments. Coming
from abstract argumentation, these methods look only at the relations between
arguments and not at the structure of the arguments themselves. In structured
argumentation the way an argument is constructed, by chaining inference rules
starting from premises, is taken into consideration. In this paper we study
methods for assigning an argument its intrinsic strength, based on the
strengths of the premises and inference rules used to form said argument. We
first define a set of principles, which are properties that strength assigning
methods might satisfy. We then propose two such methods and analyse which
principles they satisfy. Finally, we present a generalised system for creating
novel strength assigning methods and speak to the properties of this system
regarding the proposed principles.
Related papers
- Exploring Jiu-Jitsu Argumentation for Writing Peer Review Rebuttals [70.22179850619519]
In many domains of argumentation, people's arguments are driven by so-called attitude roots.
Recent work in psychology suggests that instead of directly countering surface-level reasoning, one should follow an argumentation style inspired by the Jiu-Jitsu'soft' combat system.
We are the first to explore Jiu-Jitsu argumentation for peer review by proposing the novel task of attitude and theme-guided rebuttal generation.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-11-07T13:54:01Z) - 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) - Ranking-based Argumentation Semantics Applied to Logical Argumentation
(full version) [2.9005223064604078]
We investigate the behaviour of ranking-based semantics for structured argumentation.
We show that a wide class of ranking-based semantics gives rise to so-called culpability measures.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-07-31T15:44:33Z) - On resolving conflicts between arguments [0.0]
In legal argumentation, meta-rules determine the valid arguments by considering the last defeasible rule of each argument involved in a conflict.
We propose a new argument system where, instead of deriving a defeat relation between arguments, emphundercutting-arguments for the defeat of defeasible rules are constructed.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-09-20T16:31:19Z) - A Semantic Tableau Method for Argument Construction [0.0]
A semantic tableau method, called an argumentation tableau, that enables the derivation of arguments is proposed.
An extension that enables reasoning with defeasible rules is presented.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-09-10T23:40:22Z) - 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) - Reinforcement Learning-based Dialogue Guided Event Extraction to Exploit
Argument Relations [70.35379323231241]
This paper presents a better approach for event extraction by explicitly utilizing the relationships of event arguments.
We employ reinforcement learning and incremental learning to extract multiple arguments via a multi-turned, iterative process.
Experimental results show that our approach consistently outperforms seven state-of-the-art event extraction methods.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-06-23T13:24:39Z) - 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) - 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)
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.