Relevance for Stability of Verification Status of a Set of Arguments in Incomplete Argumentation Frameworks (with Proofs)

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2505.16507v1
• Date: Thu, 22 May 2025 10:42:16 GMT
• Title: Relevance for Stability of Verification Status of a Set of Arguments in Incomplete Argumentation Frameworks (with Proofs)
• Authors: Anshu Xiong, Songmao Zhang,
• Abstract summary: We study the relevance for stability of verification status of a set of arguments in incomplete argumentation frameworks.<n>We propose the notion of strong relevance for describing the necessity of resolution in all situations reaching stability.<n>An analysis of complexity reveals that detecting the (strong) relevance for stability of sets of arguments can be accomplished in P time.
• Score: 1.519321208145928
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: The notion of relevance was proposed for stability of justification status of a single argument in incomplete argumentation frameworks (IAFs) in 2024 by Odekerken et al. To extend the notion, we study the relevance for stability of verification status of a set of arguments in this paper, i.e., the uncertainties in an IAF that have to be resolved in some situations so that answering whether a given set of arguments is an extension obtains the same result in every completion of the IAF. Further we propose the notion of strong relevance for describing the necessity of resolution in all situations reaching stability. An analysis of complexity reveals that detecting the (strong) relevance for stability of sets of arguments can be accomplished in P time under the most semantics discussed in the paper. We also discuss the difficulty in finding tractable methods for relevance detection under grounded semantics.

Related papers

• CTRLS: Chain-of-Thought Reasoning via Latent State-Transition [57.51370433303236]
  Chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning enables large language models to break down complex problems into interpretable intermediate steps.<n>We introduce groundingS, a framework that formulates CoT reasoning as a Markov decision process (MDP) with latent state transitions.<n>We show improvements in reasoning accuracy, diversity, and exploration efficiency across benchmark reasoning tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-10T21:32:18Z)
• A Methodology for Incompleteness-Tolerant and Modular Gradual Semantics for Argumentative Statement Graphs [15.717458041314194]
  We provide a novel methodology for obtaining Gradual semantics for statement graphs.<n>First, it naturally accommodates incomplete information, so that arguments with partially specified premises can play a meaningful role in the evaluation.<n>Second, it is modularly defined to leverage on any GS for QBAFs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-29T16:38:35Z)
• Rethinking State Disentanglement in Causal Reinforcement Learning [78.12976579620165]
  Causality provides rigorous theoretical support for ensuring that the underlying states can be uniquely recovered through identifiability. We revisit this research line and find that incorporating RL-specific context can reduce unnecessary assumptions in previous identifiability analyses for latent states. We propose a novel approach for general partially observable Markov Decision Processes (POMDPs) by replacing the complicated structural constraints in previous methods with two simple constraints for transition and reward preservation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-24T06:49:13Z)
• CASA: Causality-driven Argument Sufficiency Assessment [79.13496878681309]
  We propose CASA, a zero-shot causality-driven argument sufficiency assessment framework. PS measures how likely introducing the premise event would lead to the conclusion when both the premise and conclusion events are absent. Experiments on two logical fallacy detection datasets demonstrate that CASA accurately identifies insufficient arguments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-10T16:21:18Z)
• A Unifying Framework for Learning Argumentation Semantics [47.84663434179473]
  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.<n>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)
• Many-valued Argumentation, Conditionals and a Probabilistic Semantics for Gradual Argumentation [3.9571744700171743]
  We propose a general approach to define a many-valued preferential interpretation of gradual argumentation semantics. As a proof of concept, in the finitely-valued case, an Answer set Programming approach is proposed for conditional reasoning. The paper also develops and discusses a probabilistic semantics for gradual argumentation, which builds on the many-valued conditional semantics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-14T22:10:46Z)
• Fuzzy Labeling Semantics for Quantitative Argumentation [0.0]
  We provide a novel quantitative method called fuzzy labeling for fuzzy argumentation systems. A triple of acceptability, rejectability, and undecidability degrees is used to evaluate argument strength.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-15T08:31:36Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• An Imprecise Probability Approach for Abstract Argumentation based on Credal Sets [1.3764085113103217]
  We tackle the problem of calculating the degree of uncertainty of the extensions considering that the probability values of the arguments are imprecise. We use credal sets to model the uncertainty values of arguments and from these credal sets, we calculate the lower and upper bounds of the extensions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-09-16T00:52:18Z)
• The Curse of Performance Instability in Analysis Datasets: Consequences, Source, and Suggestions [93.62888099134028]
  We find that the performance of state-of-the-art models on Natural Language Inference (NLI) and Reading (RC) analysis/stress sets can be highly unstable. This raises three questions: (1) How will the instability affect the reliability of the conclusions drawn based on these analysis sets? We give both theoretical explanations and empirical evidence regarding the source of the instability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-28T15:41:12Z)

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.