Some Options for Instantiation of Bipolar Argument Graphs with Deductive Arguments

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2308.04372v1
• Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2023 16:22:27 GMT
• Title: Some Options for Instantiation of Bipolar Argument Graphs with Deductive Arguments
• Authors: Anthony Hunter
• Abstract summary: A bipolar argument graph is a directed graph where each node denotes an argument, and each arc denotes the influence of one argument on another. In a bipolar argument graph, each argument is atomic and so it has no internal structure. This paper presents a framework based on the use of logical arguments to instantiate bipolar argument graphs.
• Score: 4.111899441919164
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Argument graphs provide an abstract representation of an argumentative situation. A bipolar argument graph is a directed graph where each node denotes an argument, and each arc denotes the influence of one argument on another. Here we assume that the influence is supporting, attacking, or ambiguous. In a bipolar argument graph, each argument is atomic and so it has no internal structure. Yet to better understand the nature of the individual arguments, and how they interact, it is important to consider their internal structure. To address this need, this paper presents a framework based on the use of logical arguments to instantiate bipolar argument graphs, and a set of possible constraints on instantiating arguments that take into account the internal structure of the arguments, and the types of relationship between arguments.

Related papers

• Understanding Enthymemes in Argument Maps: Bridging Argument Mining and Logic-based Argumentation [11.633929083694388]
  In this paper, we assume that an argument map contains the premises and claims of arguments, and support and attack relationships between them. To understand and to automatically analyse that argument map, it would be desirable to instantiate that argument map with logical arguments. We address this need by using classical logic for representing the explicit information in the text, and using default logic for representing the implicit information in the text.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-16T10:30:30Z)
• 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)
• Semi-Abstract Value-Based Argumentation Framework [0.0]
  Phan Minh Dung proposed abstract argumentation framework, which models argumentation using directed graphs where structureless arguments are the nodes and attacks among the arguments are the edges. This thesis showcases two such extensions -- value-based argumentation framework by Trevor Bench-Capon (2002) and semi-abstract argumentation framework by Esther Anna Corsi and Christian Ferm" The contribution of this thesis is two-fold. Firstly, the new semi-abstract value-based argumentation framework is introduced. This framework maps propositional formulae associated with individual arguments to a set of ordered values.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-25T13:10:56Z)
• MetaLogic: Logical Reasoning Explanations with Fine-Grained Structure [129.8481568648651]
  We propose a benchmark to investigate models' logical reasoning capabilities in complex real-life scenarios. Based on the multi-hop chain of reasoning, the explanation form includes three main components. We evaluate the current best models' performance on this new explanation form.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-22T16:01:13Z)
• On resolving conflicts between arguments [0.0]
  In legal argumentation, meta-rules determine the valid arguments by considering the last defeasible rule of each argument involved in a conflict. We propose a new argument system where, instead of deriving a defeat relation between arguments, emphundercutting-arguments for the defeat of defeasible rules are constructed.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-09-20T16:31:19Z)
• 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)
• Intrinsic Argument Strength in Structured Argumentation: a Principled Approach [0.0]
  We study methods for assigning an argument its intrinsic strength, based on the strengths of the premises and inference rules used to form said argument. We first define a set of principles, which are properties that strength assigning methods might satisfy. We then propose two such methods and analyse which principles they satisfy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-01T11:54:15Z)
• Collective Argumentation: The Case of Aggregating Support-Relations of Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks [0.0]
  We analyze what semantic properties of bipolar argumentation frameworks can be preserved by aggregation rules. In this paper, we assume that under bipolar argumentation frameworks, individuals are equipped with a set of arguments and a set of attacks between arguments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-22T02:45:10Z)
• 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)
• ExplaGraphs: An Explanation Graph Generation Task for Structured Commonsense Reasoning [65.15423587105472]
  We present a new generative and structured commonsense-reasoning task (and an associated dataset) of explanation graph generation for stance prediction. Specifically, given a belief and an argument, a model has to predict whether the argument supports or counters the belief and also generate a commonsense-augmented graph that serves as non-trivial, complete, and unambiguous explanation for the predicted stance. A significant 83% of our graphs contain external commonsense nodes with diverse structures and reasoning depths.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-15T17:51:36Z)
• Aspect-Controlled Neural Argument Generation [65.91772010586605]
  We train a language model for argument generation that can be controlled on a fine-grained level to generate sentence-level arguments for a given topic, stance, and aspect. Our evaluation shows that our generation model is able to generate high-quality, aspect-specific arguments. These arguments can be used to improve the performance of stance detection models via data augmentation and to generate counter-arguments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-30T20:17:22Z)

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.