Related papers: Defense semantics of argumentation: revisit

Related papers

Tenability and Weak Semantics: Modeling Non-uniform Defense -- Extended Version [0.0]
Weak semantics relax the demands of admissibility by restricting which counterarguments must be taken seriously.<n>We introduce tenability, a family of dialogue-based semantics that formalize when a designated argument can be maintained against any conflict-free attack.<n>We define three variants -- static tenability, tenability, and strong tenability -- via monotone commitment games over finite conflict-free moves.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2026-05-03T19:20:13Z)
Rejecting Arguments Based on Doubt in Structured Bipolar Argumentation [2.6754173570117303]
This paper develops a new approach to computational argumentation informed by philosophical and linguistic views.<n>It takes into account two ideas that have received little attention in the literature on computational argumentation.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2026-02-03T09:09:19Z)
Deontic Argumentation [0.0]
Some recent results show that grounded semantics do not support weak permission when there is a conflict between two obligations.<n>We provide a definition of Deontic Argumentation Theory that accounts for weak permission, and we recall the result about grounded semantics.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-09-30T04:50:07Z)
Reasoning is about giving reasons [55.56111618153049]
We show that we can identify and extract the logical structure of natural language arguments in three popular reasoning datasets with high accuracies.<n>Our approach supports all forms of reasoning that depend on the logical structure of the natural language argument.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-08-20T07:26:53Z)
A Critical Evaluation of Defenses against Prompt Injection Attacks [95.81023801370073]
Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to prompt injection attacks.<n>Several defenses have recently been proposed, often claiming to mitigate these attacks successfully.<n>We argue that existing studies lack a principled approach to evaluating these defenses.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-05-23T19:39:56Z)
Turning Logic Against Itself : Probing Model Defenses Through Contrastive Questions [51.51850981481236]
We introduce POATE, a novel jailbreak technique that harnesses contrastive reasoning to provoke unethical responses. PoATE crafts semantically opposing intents and integrates them with adversarial templates, steering models toward harmful outputs with remarkable subtlety. To counter this, we propose Intent-Aware CoT and Reverse Thinking CoT, which decompose queries to detect malicious intent and reason in reverse to evaluate and reject harmful responses.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-01-03T15:40:03Z)
Data Reconstruction: When You See It and When You Don't [75.03157721978279]
We aim to "sandwich" the concept of reconstruction attacks by addressing two complementing questions. We introduce a new definitional paradigm -- Narcissus Resiliency -- to formulate a security definition for protection against reconstruction attacks.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-05-24T17:49:34Z)
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)
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)
Randomness in ML Defenses Helps Persistent Attackers and Hinders Evaluators [49.52538232104449]
It is becoming increasingly imperative to design robust ML defenses. Recent work has found that many defenses that initially resist state-of-the-art attacks can be broken by an adaptive adversary. We take steps to simplify the design of defenses and argue that white-box defenses should eschew randomness when possible.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-02-27T01:33:31Z)
Measuring Equality in Machine Learning Security Defenses: A Case Study in Speech Recognition [56.69875958980474]
This work considers approaches to defending learned systems and how security defenses result in performance inequities across different sub-populations. We find that many methods that have been proposed can cause direct harm, like false rejection and unequal benefits from robustness training. We present a comparison of equality between two rejection-based defenses: randomized smoothing and neural rejection, finding randomized smoothing more equitable due to the sampling mechanism for minority groups.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-02-17T16:19:26Z)
LPAttack: A Feasible Annotation Scheme for Capturing Logic Pattern of Attacks in Arguments [33.445994192714956]
In argumentative discourse, persuasion is often achieved by refuting or attacking others arguments. No existing studies capture complex rhetorical moves in attacks or the presuppositions or value judgements in them. We introduce LPAttack, a novel annotation scheme that captures the common modes and complex rhetorical moves in attacks along with the implicit presuppositions and value judgements in them.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-04-04T14:15:25Z)
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)
Argument Undermining: Counter-Argument Generation by Attacking Weak Premises [31.463885580010192]
We explore argument undermining, that is, countering an argument by attacking one of its premises. We propose a pipeline approach that first assesses the premises' strength and then generates a counter-argument targeting the weak ones.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-05-25T08:39:14Z)
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)
Advocating for Multiple Defense Strategies against Adversarial Examples [66.90877224665168]
It has been empirically observed that defense mechanisms designed to protect neural networks against $ell_infty$ adversarial examples offer poor performance. In this paper we conduct a geometrical analysis that validates this observation. Then, we provide a number of empirical insights to illustrate the effect of this phenomenon in practice.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2020-12-04T14:42:46Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.