Integrating Temporality and Causality into Acyclic Argumentation Frameworks using a Transition System

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2303.09197v2
• Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2024 08:42:45 GMT
• Title: Integrating Temporality and Causality into Acyclic Argumentation Frameworks using a Transition System
• Authors: Y. Munro (1), C. Sarmiento (1), I. Bloch (1), G. Bourgne (1), M.-J. Lesot (1) ((1) Sorbonne Universit\'e, CNRS, LIP6, Paris, France)
• Abstract summary: We propose a formal method to rewrite the concepts of acyclic abstract argumentation frameworks into an action language. We establish causal relationships between the enunciation of arguments and their consequences, whether direct or indirect. An Answer Set Programming implementation is also proposed, as well as perspectives towards explanations.
• Score: 0.5420492913071214
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: In the context of abstract argumentation, we present the benefits of considering temporality, i.e. the order in which arguments are enunciated, as well as causality. We propose a formal method to rewrite the concepts of acyclic abstract argumentation frameworks into an action language, that allows us to model the evolution of the world, and to establish causal relationships between the enunciation of arguments and their consequences, whether direct or indirect. An Answer Set Programming implementation is also proposed, as well as perspectives towards explanations.

Related papers

• An action language-based formalisation of an abstract argumentation framework [2.6988814189407937]
  We propose a new framework for modelling abstract argumentation graphs. By taking the order of enunciation into account, we have the means to deduce a unique outcome for each dialogue.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-29T09:24:29Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Stable Normative Explanations: From Argumentation to Deontic Logic [1.3272510644778104]
  This paper examines how a notion of stable explanation can be expressed in the context of formal argumentation. We show how to build from argumentation neighborhood structures for deontic logic where this notion of explanation can be characterised.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-11T10:26:05Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Stability in Abstract Argumentation [2.375764121997739]
  We show how the notion of stability can be translated into reasoning with Argument-Incomplete AFs. We illustrate to what extent this notion can be useful with an application to argument-based negotiation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-23T10:34:38Z)
• Thinking About Causation: A Causal Language with Epistemic Operators [58.720142291102135]
  We extend the notion of a causal model with a representation of the state of an agent. On the side of the object language, we add operators to express knowledge and the act of observing new information. We provide a sound and complete axiomatization of the logic, and discuss the relation of this framework to causal team semantics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-30T12:16:45Z)

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.