Revisiting Vacuous Reduct Semantics for Abstract Argumentation (Extended Version)

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2408.14069v1
• Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2024 07:50:49 GMT
• Title: Revisiting Vacuous Reduct Semantics for Abstract Argumentation (Extended Version)
• Authors: Lydia Blümel, Matthias Thimm,
• Abstract summary: We consider the notion of a vacuous reduct semantics for abstract argumentation frameworks. We give a systematic overview on vacuous reduct semantics resulting from combining different admissibility-based and conflict-free semantics.
• Score: 8.010966370223985
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: We consider the notion of a vacuous reduct semantics for abstract argumentation frameworks, which, given two abstract argumentation semantics {\sigma} and {\tau}, refines {\sigma} (base condition) by accepting only those {\sigma}-extensions that have no non-empty {\tau}-extension in their reduct (vacuity condition). We give a systematic overview on vacuous reduct semantics resulting from combining different admissibility-based and conflict-free semantics and present a principle-based analysis of vacuous reduct semantics in general. We provide criteria for the inheritance of principle satisfaction by a vacuous reduct semantics from its base and vacuity condition for established as well as recently introduced principles in the context of weak argumentation semantics. We also conduct a principle-based analysis for the special case of undisputed semantics.

Related papers

• 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)
• A Unified View on Forgetting and Strong Equivalence Notions in Answer Set Programming [14.342696862884704]
  We introduce a novel relativized equivalence notion, which is able to capture all related notions from the literature. We then introduce an operator that combines projection and a relaxation of (SP)-forgetting to obtain the relativized simplifications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-13T09:05:48Z)
• Interpretable Automatic Fine-grained Inconsistency Detection in Text Summarization [56.94741578760294]
  We propose the task of fine-grained inconsistency detection, the goal of which is to predict the fine-grained types of factual errors in a summary. Motivated by how humans inspect factual inconsistency in summaries, we propose an interpretable fine-grained inconsistency detection model, FineGrainFact.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-23T22:11:47Z)
• Biomedical Named Entity Recognition via Dictionary-based Synonym Generalization [51.89486520806639]
  We propose a novel Synonym Generalization (SynGen) framework that recognizes the biomedical concepts contained in the input text using span-based predictions. We extensively evaluate our approach on a wide range of benchmarks and the results verify that SynGen outperforms previous dictionary-based models by notable margins.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-22T14:36:32Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Rediscovering Argumentation Principles Utilizing Collective Attacks [26.186171927678874]
  We extend the principle-based approach to Argumentation Frameworks with Collective Attacks (SETAFs) Our analysis shows that investigating principles based on decomposing the given SETAF (e.g. directionality or SCC-recursiveness) poses additional challenges in comparison to usual AFs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-06T11:41:23Z)
• Leveraging Unlabeled Data for Entity-Relation Extraction through Probabilistic Constraint Satisfaction [54.06292969184476]
  We study the problem of entity-relation extraction in the presence of symbolic domain knowledge. Our approach employs semantic loss which captures the precise meaning of a logical sentence. With a focus on low-data regimes, we show that semantic loss outperforms the baselines by a wide margin.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-03-20T00:16:29Z)
• On graded semantics of abstract argumentation: Extension-based case [0.0]
  This paper considers some issues on extension-based semantics for abstract argumentation framework (AAF) An alternative fundamental lemma is given, which generalizes the corresponding result obtained in [1]. A number of fundamental semantics for AAF, including conflict-free, admissible, complete and stable semantics, are shown to be closed under reduced meet modulo an ultrafilter.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-19T04:32:19Z)
• Compressive Summarization with Plausibility and Salience Modeling [54.37665950633147]
  We propose to relax the rigid syntactic constraints on candidate spans and instead leave compression decisions to two data-driven criteria: plausibility and salience. Our method achieves strong in-domain results on benchmark summarization datasets, and human evaluation shows that the plausibility model generally selects for grammatical and factual deletions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-15T17:07:10Z)
• Technical Report of "Deductive Joint Support for Rational Unrestricted Rebuttal" [1.3706331473063877]
  In ASPIC-style structured argumentation an argument can rebut another argument by attacking its conclusion. In restricted rebuttal, the attacked conclusion must have been arrived at with a defeasible rule. In unrestricted rebuttal, it may have been arrived at with a strict rule, as long as at least one of the antecedents of this strict rule was already defeasible.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-05-07T17:19:18Z)

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.