Fuzzy Labeling Semantics for Quantitative Argumentation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2207.07339v2
• Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2023 09:43:29 GMT
• Title: Fuzzy Labeling Semantics for Quantitative Argumentation
• Authors: Zongshun Wang, Yuping Shen
• Abstract summary: 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.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Evaluating argument strength in quantitative argumentation systems has received increasing attention in the field of abstract argumentation. The concept of acceptability degree is widely adopted in gradual semantics, however, it may not be sufficient in many practical applications. In this paper, we provide a novel quantitative method called fuzzy labeling for fuzzy argumentation systems, in which a triple of acceptability, rejectability, and undecidability degrees is used to evaluate argument strength. Such a setting sheds new light on defining argument strength and provides a deeper understanding of the status of arguments. More specifically, we investigate the postulates of fuzzy labeling, which present the rationality requirements for semantics concerning the acceptability, rejectability, and undecidability degrees. We then propose a class of fuzzy labeling semantics conforming to the above postulates and investigate the relations between fuzzy labeling semantics and existing work in the literature.

Related papers

• The Foundations of Tokenization: Statistical and Computational Concerns [51.370165245628975]
  Tokenization is a critical step in the NLP pipeline. Despite its recognized importance as a standard representation method in NLP, the theoretical underpinnings of tokenization are not yet fully understood. The present paper contributes to addressing this theoretical gap by proposing a unified formal framework for representing and analyzing tokenizer models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-16T11:12:28Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Enriching Disentanglement: From Logical Definitions to Quantitative Metrics [59.12308034729482]
  Disentangling the explanatory factors in complex data is a promising approach for data-efficient representation learning. We establish relationships between logical definitions and quantitative metrics to derive theoretically grounded disentanglement metrics. We empirically demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed metrics by isolating different aspects of disentangled representations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-19T08:22:23Z)
• Many-valued Argumentation, Conditionals and a Probabilistic Semantics for Gradual Argumentation [3.9571744700171743]
  We propose a general approach to define a many-valued preferential interpretation of gradual argumentation semantics. As a proof of concept, in the finitely-valued case, an Answer set Programming approach is proposed for conditional reasoning. The paper also develops and discusses a probabilistic semantics for gradual argumentation, which builds on the many-valued conditional semantics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-14T22:10:46Z)
• 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)
• Logical Satisfiability of Counterfactuals for Faithful Explanations in NLI [60.142926537264714]
  We introduce the methodology of Faithfulness-through-Counterfactuals. It generates a counterfactual hypothesis based on the logical predicates expressed in the explanation. It then evaluates if the model's prediction on the counterfactual is consistent with that expressed logic.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-25T03:40:59Z)
• 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)
• Broadening Label-based Argumentation Semantics with May-Must Scales (May-Must Argumentation) [3.7311680121118336]
  Labeling-based approach allows for concise and flexible determination of acceptability statuses of arguments. We show that the broadened label-based semantics can be used to express more mild indeterminacy than inconsistency for acceptability judgement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-01-16T10:24:13Z)

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.