Analytical Solutions for the Inverse Problem within Gradual Semantics
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2203.01201v1
- Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2022 15:55:10 GMT
- Title: Analytical Solutions for the Inverse Problem within Gradual Semantics
- Authors: Nir Oren, Bruno Yun, Assaf Libman, Murilo S. Baptista
- Abstract summary: We show how an analytical approach can be used to solve the inverse problem in gradual semantics.
Unlike the current state-of-the-art, such an approach can rapidly find a solution, and is guaranteed to do so.
- Score: 3.957174470017176
- License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
- Abstract: Gradual semantics within abstract argumentation associate a numeric score
with every argument in a system, which represents the level of acceptability of
this argument, and from which a preference ordering over arguments can be
derived. While some semantics operate over standard argumentation frameworks,
many utilise a weighted framework, where a numeric initial weight is associated
with each argument. Recent work has examined the inverse problem within gradual
semantics. Rather than determining a preference ordering given an argumentation
framework and a semantics, the inverse problem takes an argumentation
framework, a gradual semantics, and a preference ordering as inputs, and
identifies what weights are needed to over arguments in the framework to obtain
the desired preference ordering. Existing work has attacked the inverse problem
numerically, using a root finding algorithm (the bisection method) to identify
appropriate initial weights. In this paper we demonstrate that for a class of
gradual semantics, an analytical approach can be used to solve the inverse
problem. Unlike the current state-of-the-art, such an analytic approach can
rapidly find a solution, and is guaranteed to do so. In obtaining this result,
we are able to prove several important properties which previous work had posed
as conjectures.
Related papers
- An Extension-based Approach for Computing and Verifying Preferences in Abstract Argumentation [1.7065454553786665]
We present an extension-based approach for computing and verifying preferences in an abstract argumentation system.
We show that the complexity of computing sets of preferences is exponential in the number of arguments.
We present novel algorithms for verifying (i.e., assessing) the computed preferences.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-03-26T12:36:11Z) - Abstract Weighted Based Gradual Semantics in Argumentation Theory [3.2566808526538873]
We introduce four important problems linking gradual semantics and acceptability degrees.
First, we reexamine the inverse problem, seeking to identify the argument weights of the argumentation framework which lead to a specific final acceptability degree.
Third, we ask whether argument weights can be found when preferences, rather than acceptability degrees for arguments are considered.
Fourth, we consider the topology of the space of valid acceptability degrees, asking whether "gaps" exist in this space.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-01-21T12:22:48Z) - 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) - Optimizing Solution-Samplers for Combinatorial Problems: The Landscape
of Policy-Gradient Methods [52.0617030129699]
We introduce a novel theoretical framework for analyzing the effectiveness of DeepMatching Networks and Reinforcement Learning methods.
Our main contribution holds for a broad class of problems including Max-and Min-Cut, Max-$k$-Bipartite-Bi, Maximum-Weight-Bipartite-Bi, and Traveling Salesman Problem.
As a byproduct of our analysis we introduce a novel regularization process over vanilla descent and provide theoretical and experimental evidence that it helps address vanishing-gradient issues and escape bad stationary points.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-10-08T23:39:38Z) - 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) - Inferring Attack Relations for Gradual Semantics [5.254093731341154]
A gradual semantics takes a weighted argumentation framework as input and outputs a final acceptability degree for each argument.
We seek to determine whether there is a set of attacks on those arguments such that we can obtain these acceptability degrees.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-11-29T11:45:27Z) - Object Representations as Fixed Points: Training Iterative Refinement
Algorithms with Implicit Differentiation [88.14365009076907]
Iterative refinement is a useful paradigm for representation learning.
We develop an implicit differentiation approach that improves the stability and tractability of training.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-07-02T10:00:35Z) - The Inverse Problem for Argumentation Gradual Semantics [8.860629791560198]
A sub-class of such semantics, the so-called weighted semantics, takes an initial set of weights over the arguments as input.
We consider the inverse problem over such weighted semantics.
That is, given an argumentation framework and a desired argument ranking, we ask whether there exist initial weights such that a particular semantics produces the given ranking.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-02-01T09:46:23Z) - 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) - Abstract Reasoning via Logic-guided Generation [65.92805601327649]
Abstract reasoning, i.e., inferring complicated patterns from given observations, is a central building block of artificial general intelligence.
This paper aims to design a framework for the latter approach and bridge the gap between artificial and human intelligence.
We propose logic-guided generation (LoGe), a novel generative DNN framework that reduces abstract reasoning as an optimization problem in propositional logic.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-07-22T07:28:24Z) - Navigating to the Best Policy in Markov Decision Processes [68.8204255655161]
We investigate the active pure exploration problem in Markov Decision Processes.
Agent sequentially selects actions and, from the resulting system trajectory, aims at the best as fast as possible.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-06-05T09:16:28Z)
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.