Deontic Argumentation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2509.25781v1
• Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 04:50:07 GMT
• Title: Deontic Argumentation
• Abstract summary: 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.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: We address the issue of defining a semantics for deontic argumentation that supports weak permission. Some recent results show that grounded semantics do not support weak permission when there is a conflict between two obligations. We provide a definition of Deontic Argumentation Theory that accounts for weak permission, and we recall the result about grounded semantics. Then, we propose a new semantics that supports weak permission.

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)
• Cogent argument extensions are weakly admissible but not vice versa [0.0]
  We show the relationship between two non-admissible argumentation framework semantics: cogent and weakly admissible semantics.<n>We prove that, while cogent extensions are weakly admissible, the converse is not true.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-12T15:26:57Z)
• 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)
• Is the Top Still Spinning? Evaluating Subjectivity in Narrative Understanding [40.78154629252038]
  Forcing binary labels upon ambiguous claims lowers the reliability of evaluation.<n>We introduce LLM-generated edits of summaries as a method of providing a nuanced evaluation of claims.<n>We show that ARM produces a absolute 21% improvement in annotator agreement on claim faithfulness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-01T19:08:24Z)
• Weak Permission is not Well-Founded, Grounded and Stable [0.0]
  We show that it is not possible to capture weak permission in the presence of deontic conflicts under the well-founded, grounded and (sceptical) stable semantics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-15T23:14:30Z)
• Revisiting Vacuous Reduct Semantics for Abstract Argumentation (Extended Version) [8.010966370223985]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-26T07:50:49Z)
• Defense semantics of argumentation: revisit [0.0]
  We introduce a novel semantics, called defense semantics, for Dung's abstract argumentation frameworks. In terms of defense semantics, we show that defenses related to self-attacked arguments and arguments in 3-cycles are unsatifiable under any situation. We also introduce a new notion of defense equivalence of AFs, and compare defense equivalence with standard equivalence and strong equivalence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-20T21:51:45Z)
• Are Synonym Substitution Attacks Really Synonym Substitution Attacks? [80.81532239566992]
  We show that four widely used word substitution methods generate a large fraction of invalid substitution words that are ungrammatical or do not preserve the original sentence's semantics. Next, we show that the semantic and grammatical constraints used in SSAs for detecting invalid word replacements are highly insufficient in detecting invalid adversarial samples.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-06T12:01:50Z)
• Comprehending and Ordering Semantics for Image Captioning [124.48670699658649]
  We propose a new recipe of Transformer-style structure, namely Comprehending and Ordering Semantics Networks (COS-Net) COS-Net unifies an enriched semantic comprehending and a learnable semantic ordering processes into a single architecture.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-14T15:51:14Z)
• 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)
• Provable Limitations of Acquiring Meaning from Ungrounded Form: What will Future Language Models Understand? [87.20342701232869]
  We investigate the abilities of ungrounded systems to acquire meaning. We study whether assertions enable a system to emulate representations preserving semantic relations like equivalence. We find that assertions enable semantic emulation if all expressions in the language are referentially transparent. However, if the language uses non-transparent patterns like variable binding, we show that emulation can become an uncomputable problem.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-22T01:00:17Z)
• A Weaker Faithfulness Assumption based on Triple Interactions [89.59955143854556]
  We propose a weaker assumption that we call $2$-adjacency faithfulness. We propose a sound orientation rule for causal discovery that applies under weaker assumptions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-27T13:04:08Z)
• Human Correspondence Consensus for 3D Object Semantic Understanding [56.34297279246823]
  In this paper, we introduce a new dataset named CorresPondenceNet. Based on this dataset, we are able to learn dense semantic embeddings with a novel geodesic consistency loss. We show that CorresPondenceNet could not only boost fine-grained understanding of heterogeneous objects but also cross-object registration and partial object matching.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2019-12-29T04:24:22Z)

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.