Many-valued Argumentation, Conditionals and a Probabilistic Semantics for Gradual Argumentation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2212.07523v1
• Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2022 22:10:46 GMT
• Title: Many-valued Argumentation, Conditionals and a Probabilistic Semantics for Gradual Argumentation
• Authors: Mario Alviano, Laura Giordano, and Daniele Theseider Dupr\'e
• Abstract summary: 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.
• Score: 3.9571744700171743
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: In this paper we propose a general approach to define a many-valued preferential interpretation of gradual argumentation semantics. The approach allows for conditional reasoning over arguments and boolean combination of arguments, with respect to a class of gradual semantics, through the verification of graded (strict or defeasible) implications over a preferential interpretation. As a proof of concept, in the finitely-valued case, an Answer set Programming approach is proposed for conditional reasoning in a many-valued argumentation semantics of weighted argumentation graphs. The paper also develops and discusses a probabilistic semantics for gradual argumentation, which builds on the many-valued conditional semantics.

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)
• 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)
• An Encoding of Abstract Dialectical Frameworks into Higher-Order Logic [57.24311218570012]
  This approach allows for the computer-assisted analysis of abstract dialectical frameworks. Exemplary applications include the formal analysis and verification of meta-theoretical properties.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-08T09:32:26Z)
• 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)
• Fuzzy Labeling Semantics for Quantitative Argumentation [0.0]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-15T08:31:36Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Relational Argumentation Semantics [10.165529175855712]
  We show that many existing semantics such as explanation semantics, multi-agent semantics, and more typical semantics, are understood in the relational perspective. This is a direction to understand argumentation semantics through a common formal language.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-26T07:58:17Z)

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.