Revisiting initial sets in abstract argumentation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2204.09985v1
• Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2022 09:23:12 GMT
• Title: Revisiting initial sets in abstract argumentation
• Authors: Matthias Thimm
• Abstract summary: We revisit the notion of initial sets by Xu and Cayrol, i.e., non-empty minimal admissible sets in argumentation frameworks. We contribute with new insights on the structure of initial sets and devise a simple non-deterministic construction principle for any admissible set.
• Score: 7.249126423531563
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: We revisit the notion of initial sets by Xu and Cayrol, i.e., non-empty minimal admissible sets in abstract argumentation frameworks. Initial sets are a simple concept for analysing conflicts in an abstract argumentation framework and to explain why certain arguments can be accepted. We contribute with new insights on the structure of initial sets and devise a simple non-deterministic construction principle for any admissible set, based on iterative selection of initial sets of the original framework and its induced reducts. In particular, we characterise many existing admissibility-based semantics via this construction principle, thus providing a constructive explanation on the structure of extensions. We also investigate certain problems related to initial sets with respect to their computational complexity.

Related papers

• CoT-Seg: Rethinking Segmentation with Chain-of-Thought Reasoning and Self-Correction [50.67483317563736]
  This paper aims to explore a system that can think step-by-step, look up information if needed, generate results, self-evaluate its own results, and refine the results.<n>We introduce CoT-Seg, a training-free framework that rethinks reasoning segmentation by combining chain-of-thought reasoning with self-correction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-24T11:41:54Z)
• On the Complexity of the Grounded Semantics for Infinite Argumentation Frameworks [0.0]
  We use methods from mathematical logic, specifically computability and set theory, to analyze the grounded extension.<n>Finding this fixed-point requires transfinite iterations.<n>This shows a marked distinction from the finite case where the grounded extension is-time computable.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-27T12:13:30Z)
• Step-Aware Policy Optimization for Reasoning in Diffusion Large Language Models [57.42778606399764]
  Diffusion language models (dLLMs) offer a promising, non-autoregressive paradigm for text generation.<n>Current reinforcement learning approaches often rely on sparse, outcome-based rewards.<n>We argue that this stems from a fundamental mismatch with the natural structure of reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-02T00:34:15Z)
• CLATTER: Comprehensive Entailment Reasoning for Hallucination Detection [60.98964268961243]
  We propose that guiding models to perform a systematic and comprehensive reasoning process allows models to execute much finer-grained and accurate entailment decisions.<n>We define a 3-step reasoning process, consisting of (i) claim decomposition, (ii) sub-claim attribution and entailment classification, and (iii) aggregated classification, showing that such guided reasoning indeed yields improved hallucination detection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-05T17:02:52Z)
• Make LLMs better zero-shot reasoners: Structure-orientated autonomous reasoning [52.83539473110143]
  We introduce a novel structure-oriented analysis method to help Large Language Models (LLMs) better understand a question. To further improve the reliability in complex question-answering tasks, we propose a multi-agent reasoning system, Structure-oriented Autonomous Reasoning Agents (SARA) Extensive experiments verify the effectiveness of the proposed reasoning system. Surprisingly, in some cases, the system even surpasses few-shot methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-18T05:30:33Z)
• Learning Visual-Semantic Subspace Representations for Propositional Reasoning [49.17165360280794]
  We propose a novel approach for learning visual representations that conform to a specified semantic structure. Our approach is based on a new nuclear norm-based loss. We show that its minimum encodes the spectral geometry of the semantics in a subspace lattice.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-25T12:51:38Z)
• Parrot Mind: Towards Explaining the Complex Task Reasoning of Pretrained Large Language Models with Template-Content Structure [66.33623392497599]
  We show that a structure called template-content structure (T-C structure) can reduce the possible space from exponential level to linear level. We demonstrate that models can achieve task composition, further reducing the space needed to learn from linear to logarithmic.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-09T06:57:45Z)
• Invariant Causal Set Covering Machines [64.86459157191346]
  Rule-based models, such as decision trees, appeal to practitioners due to their interpretable nature. However, the learning algorithms that produce such models are often vulnerable to spurious associations and thus, they are not guaranteed to extract causally-relevant insights. We propose Invariant Causal Set Covering Machines, an extension of the classical Set Covering Machine algorithm for conjunctions/disjunctions of binary-valued rules that provably avoids spurious associations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-07T20:52:01Z)
• Linear Spaces of Meanings: Compositional Structures in Vision-Language Models [110.00434385712786]
  We investigate compositional structures in data embeddings from pre-trained vision-language models (VLMs) We first present a framework for understanding compositional structures from a geometric perspective. We then explain what these structures entail probabilistically in the case of VLM embeddings, providing intuitions for why they arise in practice.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-28T08:11:56Z)
• Unifying Structure Reasoning and Language Model Pre-training for Complex Reasoning [26.811507121199323]
  This paper proposes a unified learning framework that combines explicit structure reasoning and language pre-training to endow PLMs with the structure reasoning skill. It first identifies several elementary structures within contexts to construct structured queries and performs step-by-step reasoning along the queries to identify the answer entity. Experimental results on four datasets demonstrate that the proposed model achieves significant improvements in complex reasoning tasks involving diverse structures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-21T08:18:11Z)
• 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)
• Rationale-Augmented Ensembles in Language Models [53.45015291520658]
  We reconsider rationale-augmented prompting for few-shot in-context learning. We identify rationale sampling in the output space as the key component to robustly improve performance. We demonstrate that rationale-augmented ensembles achieve more accurate and interpretable results than existing prompting approaches.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-02T06:20:57Z)
• Rediscovering Argumentation Principles Utilizing Collective Attacks [26.186171927678874]
  We extend the principle-based approach to Argumentation Frameworks with Collective Attacks (SETAFs) Our analysis shows that investigating principles based on decomposing the given SETAF (e.g. directionality or SCC-recursiveness) poses additional challenges in comparison to usual AFs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-06T11:41:23Z)
• 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)
• Discrete Reasoning Templates for Natural Language Understanding [79.07883990966077]
  We present an approach that reasons about complex questions by decomposing them to simpler subquestions. We derive the final answer according to instructions in a predefined reasoning template. We show that our approach is competitive with the state-of-the-art while being interpretable and requires little supervision.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-05T18:56:56Z)
• Preference Elicitation in Assumption-Based Argumentation [3.0323642294813355]
  We consider an inverse of the standard reasoning problem, seeking to identify what preferences over assumptions could lead to a given set of conclusions being drawn. We present an algorithm which computes and enumerates all possible sets of preferences over the assumptions in the system from which a desired conflict free set of conclusions can be obtained.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-05-12T12:31:27Z)
• Better Set Representations For Relational Reasoning [30.398348643632445]
  relational reasoning operates on a set of entities, as opposed to standard vector representations. We propose a simple and general network module called a Set Refiner Network (SRN)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-03-09T23:07:27Z)

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.