J. Mumford, I. Sassoon, Elizabeth Black, S. Parsons
{"title":"On the Complexity of Determining Defeat Relations Consistent with Abstract Argumentation Semantics","authors":"J. Mumford, I. Sassoon, Elizabeth Black, S. Parsons","doi":"10.3233/FAIA220158","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3233/FAIA220158","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":36616,"journal":{"name":"Comma","volume":"34 1","pages":"260-271"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77626563","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Polemicist: A Dialogical Interface for Exploring Complex Debates","authors":"John Lawrence, J. Visser, C. Reed","doi":"10.3233/FAIA220175","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3233/FAIA220175","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":36616,"journal":{"name":"Comma","volume":"19 1","pages":"365-366"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74872566","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
. Epistemic graphs have been developed for modelling an agent’s degree of belief in an argument and how belief in one argument may influence the belief in other arguments. These beliefs are represented by constraints on probability distri- butions. In this paper, we present a framework for reasoning with epistemic graphs that allows for beliefs for individual arguments to be determined given beliefs in some of the other arguments. We present and evaluate algorithms based on SAT solvers.
{"title":"Automated Reasoning with Epistemic Graphs Using SAT Solvers","authors":"A. Hunter","doi":"10.3233/FAIA220151","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3233/FAIA220151","url":null,"abstract":". Epistemic graphs have been developed for modelling an agent’s degree of belief in an argument and how belief in one argument may influence the belief in other arguments. These beliefs are represented by constraints on probability distri- butions. In this paper, we present a framework for reasoning with epistemic graphs that allows for beliefs for individual arguments to be determined given beliefs in some of the other arguments. We present and evaluate algorithms based on SAT solvers.","PeriodicalId":36616,"journal":{"name":"Comma","volume":"33 1","pages":"176-187"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87676344","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Atefeh Keshavarzi Zafarghandi, W. Dvořák, R. Verbrugge, Bart Verheij
{"title":"How Complex Is the Strong Admissibility Semantics for Abstract Dialectical Frameworks?","authors":"Atefeh Keshavarzi Zafarghandi, W. Dvořák, R. Verbrugge, Bart Verheij","doi":"10.3233/FAIA220153","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3233/FAIA220153","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":36616,"journal":{"name":"Comma","volume":"1 1","pages":"200-211"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89162264","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
. We introduce probo2 , an end-to-end benchmark framework for abstract argumentation solvers. It offers evaluation capabilities and analysis features for a wide range of computational problems and is easily customizable.
{"title":"probo2: A Benchmark Framework for Argumentation Solvers","authors":"Jonas Klein, Matthias Thimm","doi":"10.3233/FAIA220174","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3233/FAIA220174","url":null,"abstract":". We introduce probo2 , an end-to-end benchmark framework for abstract argumentation solvers. It offers evaluation capabilities and analysis features for a wide range of computational problems and is easily customizable.","PeriodicalId":36616,"journal":{"name":"Comma","volume":"39 1","pages":"363-364"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82425894","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
. This paper formally studies a notion of dialectical argument strength in terms of the number of ways in which an argument can be successfully attacked in expansions of an abstract argumentation framework. The proposed model is abstract but its design is motivated by the wish to avoid overly limiting assumptions that may not hold in particular dialogue contexts or in particular structured accounts of argumentation. It is shown that most principles for gradual argument acceptability proposed in the literature fail to hold for the proposed notion of dialectical strength, which clarifies their rational foundations and highlights the importance of distinguishing between logical, dialectical and rhetorical argument strength.
{"title":"Formalising an Aspect of Argument Strength: Degrees of Attackability","authors":"H. Prakken","doi":"10.3233/FAIA220161","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3233/FAIA220161","url":null,"abstract":". This paper formally studies a notion of dialectical argument strength in terms of the number of ways in which an argument can be successfully attacked in expansions of an abstract argumentation framework. The proposed model is abstract but its design is motivated by the wish to avoid overly limiting assumptions that may not hold in particular dialogue contexts or in particular structured accounts of argumentation. It is shown that most principles for gradual argument acceptability proposed in the literature fail to hold for the proposed notion of dialectical strength, which clarifies their rational foundations and highlights the importance of distinguishing between logical, dialectical and rhetorical argument strength.","PeriodicalId":36616,"journal":{"name":"Comma","volume":"1 1","pages":"296-307"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89841518","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Raimund Dachselt, S. A. Gaggl, M. Krötzsch, J. Méndez, Dominik Rusovac, Mei Yang
. Recent developments on solvers for abstract argumentation frameworks (AFs) made them capable to compute extensions for many semantics efficiently. However, for many input instances these solution spaces can become very large and incomprehensible. So far, for the further exploration and investigation of the AF solution space the user needs to use post-processing methods or handcrafted tools. To compare and explore the solution spaces of two selected semantics, we propose an approach that visually supports the user, via a combination of dimensionality reduction of argumentation extensions and a projection of extensions to sets of accepted or rejected arguments. We introduce the novel web-based visualization tool N EXAS that allows for an interactive exploration of the solution space together with a statistical analysis of the acceptance of individual arguments for the selected semantics, as well as provides an interactive correlation matrix for the acceptance of arguments. We validate the tool with a walk-through along three use cases.
{"title":"NEXAS: A Visual Tool for Navigating and Exploring Argumentation Solution Spaces","authors":"Raimund Dachselt, S. A. Gaggl, M. Krötzsch, J. Méndez, Dominik Rusovac, Mei Yang","doi":"10.3233/FAIA220146","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3233/FAIA220146","url":null,"abstract":". Recent developments on solvers for abstract argumentation frameworks (AFs) made them capable to compute extensions for many semantics efficiently. However, for many input instances these solution spaces can become very large and incomprehensible. So far, for the further exploration and investigation of the AF solution space the user needs to use post-processing methods or handcrafted tools. To compare and explore the solution spaces of two selected semantics, we propose an approach that visually supports the user, via a combination of dimensionality reduction of argumentation extensions and a projection of extensions to sets of accepted or rejected arguments. We introduce the novel web-based visualization tool N EXAS that allows for an interactive exploration of the solution space together with a statistical analysis of the acceptance of individual arguments for the selected semantics, as well as provides an interactive correlation matrix for the acceptance of arguments. We validate the tool with a walk-through along three use cases.","PeriodicalId":36616,"journal":{"name":"Comma","volume":"25 1","pages":"116-127"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89919084","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Just a Matter of Perspective","authors":"Matthias König, Anna Rapberger, Markus Ulbricht","doi":"10.3233/FAIA220154","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3233/FAIA220154","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":36616,"journal":{"name":"Comma","volume":"37 1","pages":"212-223"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89808483","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：