Semi-Abstract Value-Based Argumentation Framework

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2309.14112v1
• Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2023 13:10:56 GMT
• Title: Semi-Abstract Value-Based Argumentation Framework
• Authors: Jovan Jeromela
• Abstract summary: 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.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: In his seminal paper, Phan Minh Dung (1995) proposed abstract argumentation framework, which models argumentation using directed graphs where structureless arguments are the nodes and attacks among the arguments are the edges. In the following years, many extensions of this framework were introduced. These extensions typically add a certain form of structure to the arguments. 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\"uller (2017). The former introduces a mapping function that links individual arguments to a set of ordered values, enabling a distinction between objectively and subjectively acceptable arguments. The latter links claims of individual arguments to propositional formulae and then applies newly-introduced attack principles in order to make implicit attacks explicit and to enable a definition of a consequence relation that relies on neither the truth values nor the interpretations in the usual sense. 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. Secondly, a complex moral dilemma is formulated using the original and the value-based argumentation frameworks showcasing the expressivity of these formalisms.

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)
• Rejection in Abstract Argumentation: Harder Than Acceptance? [18.299322342860513]
  We consider flexible conditions for emphrejecting an argument from an extension, which we call rejection conditions (RCs) Rejection AFs are highly expressive, giving rise to natural problems on higher levels of the hierarchy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-20T09:37:04Z)
• Exploring Jiu-Jitsu Argumentation for Writing Peer Review Rebuttals [70.22179850619519]
  In many domains of argumentation, people's arguments are driven by so-called attitude roots. Recent work in psychology suggests that instead of directly countering surface-level reasoning, one should follow an argumentation style inspired by the Jiu-Jitsu'soft' combat system. We are the first to explore Jiu-Jitsu argumentation for peer review by proposing the novel task of attitude and theme-guided rebuttal generation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-07T13:54:01Z)
• 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)
• Some Options for Instantiation of Bipolar Argument Graphs with Deductive Arguments [4.111899441919164]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-08T16:22:27Z)
• 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)
• Reinforcement Learning-based Dialogue Guided Event Extraction to Exploit Argument Relations [70.35379323231241]
  This paper presents a better approach for event extraction by explicitly utilizing the relationships of event arguments. We employ reinforcement learning and incremental learning to extract multiple arguments via a multi-turned, iterative process. Experimental results show that our approach consistently outperforms seven state-of-the-art event extraction methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-23T13:24:39Z)
• 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)
• Abstract Interpretation in Formal Argumentation: with a Galois Connection for Abstract Dialectical Frameworks and May-Must Argumentation (First Report) [3.7311680121118336]
  Labelling-based formal argumentation relies on labelling functions that typically assign one of 3 labels to indicate either acceptance, rejection, or else undecided-to-be-either. Abstract dialectical frameworks (ADF) is a well-known argumentation formalism that belongs to this category. We prove that there is a Galois connection between MMA and ADF, in which is a concretisation of MMA and MMA is an abstraction of ADF.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-07-22T04:26:15Z)
• 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.