Dimitra Zografistou, J. Visser, John Lawrence, C. Reed
{"title":"ACH-Nav: Argument Navigation Using Techniques for Intelligence Analysis","authors":"Dimitra Zografistou, J. Visser, John Lawrence, C. Reed","doi":"10.3233/FAIA220181","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3233/FAIA220181","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":36616,"journal":{"name":"Comma","volume":"114 1","pages":"377-378"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89309051","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}
O. Arieli, A. Borg, Matthis Hesse, Christian Straßer
. Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) has gained increasing interest in recent years in the argumentation community. In this paper we consider this topic in the context of logic-based argumentation, showing that the latter is a particularly promising paradigm for facilitating explainable AI. In particular, we provide two representations of abductive reasoning by sequent-based argumentation frameworks and show that such frameworks successfully cope with related challenges, such as the handling of synonyms, justifications, and logical equivalences.
{"title":"Explainable Logic-Based Argumentation","authors":"O. Arieli, A. Borg, Matthis Hesse, Christian Straßer","doi":"10.3233/FAIA220139","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3233/FAIA220139","url":null,"abstract":". Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) has gained increasing interest in recent years in the argumentation community. In this paper we consider this topic in the context of logic-based argumentation, showing that the latter is a particularly promising paradigm for facilitating explainable AI. In particular, we provide two representations of abductive reasoning by sequent-based argumentation frameworks and show that such frameworks successfully cope with related challenges, such as the handling of synonyms, justifications, and logical equivalences.","PeriodicalId":36616,"journal":{"name":"Comma","volume":"65 1","pages":"32-43"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74005708","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}
. Normative reasoning is inherently defeasible. Formal argumentation has proven to be a unifying framework for representing nonmonotonic logics. In this work, we provide an argumentative characterization of a large class of Input/Output logics, a prominent defeasible formalism for normative reasoning. In many normative reasoning contexts, one is not merely interested in knowing whether a spe- cific obligation holds, but also in why it holds despite other norms to the contrary. We propose sequent-style argumentation systems called Deontic Argument Calculi ( DAC ), which serve transparency and bring meta-reasoning about the inapplicability of norms to the object language level. We prove soundness and completeness be- tween DAC -instantiated argumentation frameworks and constrained Input/Output logics. We illustrate our approach in view of two deontic paradoxes.
{"title":"Reasoning With and About Norms in Logical Argumentation","authors":"Kees van Berkel, Christian Straßer","doi":"10.3233/FAIA220164","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3233/FAIA220164","url":null,"abstract":". Normative reasoning is inherently defeasible. Formal argumentation has proven to be a unifying framework for representing nonmonotonic logics. In this work, we provide an argumentative characterization of a large class of Input/Output logics, a prominent defeasible formalism for normative reasoning. In many normative reasoning contexts, one is not merely interested in knowing whether a spe- cific obligation holds, but also in why it holds despite other norms to the contrary. We propose sequent-style argumentation systems called Deontic Argument Calculi ( DAC ), which serve transparency and bring meta-reasoning about the inapplicability of norms to the object language level. We prove soundness and completeness be- tween DAC -instantiated argumentation frameworks and constrained Input/Output logics. We illustrate our approach in view of two deontic paradoxes.","PeriodicalId":36616,"journal":{"name":"Comma","volume":"3 1","pages":"332-343"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79000454","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}
W. Dvořák, Tjitze Rienstra, L. V. D. Torre, S. Woltran
{"title":"Non-Admissibility in Abstract Argumentation","authors":"W. Dvořák, Tjitze Rienstra, L. V. D. Torre, S. Woltran","doi":"10.3233/FAIA220147","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3233/FAIA220147","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":36616,"journal":{"name":"Comma","volume":"34 1","pages":"128-139"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88527552","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 investigate the recently proposed notion of serialisability of seman- tics for abstract argumentation frameworks. This notion describes semantics where the construction of extensions can be serialised through iterative addition of min- imal non-empty admissible sets. We investigate general relationships between serialisability and other principles from the literature. We also investigate the novel unchallenged semantics as a new instance of a serialisable semantics and, in particular, analyse it in terms of satisfied principles and computational complexity.
{"title":"Serialisable Semantics for Abstract Argumentation","authors":"Lars Bengel, Matthias Thimm","doi":"10.3233/FAIA220143","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3233/FAIA220143","url":null,"abstract":". We investigate the recently proposed notion of serialisability of seman- tics for abstract argumentation frameworks. This notion describes semantics where the construction of extensions can be serialised through iterative addition of min- imal non-empty admissible sets. We investigate general relationships between serialisability and other principles from the literature. We also investigate the novel unchallenged semantics as a new instance of a serialisable semantics and, in particular, analyse it in terms of satisfied principles and computational complexity.","PeriodicalId":36616,"journal":{"name":"Comma","volume":"93 1","pages":"80-91"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85848773","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}
. Assumption-based argumentation (ABA) is one of the most-studied formalisms for structured argumentation. While ABA is a general formalism that can be instantiated with various different logics, most attention from the computational perspective has been focused on the logic programming (LP) instantiation of ABA. Going beyond the LP-instantiation, we develop an algorithmic approach to reasoning in the propositional default logic (DL) instantiation of ABA. Our approach is based on iterative applications of Boolean satisfiability (SAT) solvers as a natu-ral choice for implementing derivations as entailment checks in DL. We instantiate the approach for deciding acceptance and for assumption-set enumeration in the DL-instantiation of ABA under several central argumentation semantics, and empirically evaluate an implementation of the approach.
{"title":"Algorithms for Reasoning in a Default Logic Instantiation of Assumption-Based Argumentation","authors":"Tuomo Lehtonen, J. Wallner, M. Järvisalo","doi":"10.3233/FAIA220156","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3233/FAIA220156","url":null,"abstract":". Assumption-based argumentation (ABA) is one of the most-studied formalisms for structured argumentation. While ABA is a general formalism that can be instantiated with various different logics, most attention from the computational perspective has been focused on the logic programming (LP) instantiation of ABA. Going beyond the LP-instantiation, we develop an algorithmic approach to reasoning in the propositional default logic (DL) instantiation of ABA. Our approach is based on iterative applications of Boolean satisfiability (SAT) solvers as a natu-ral choice for implementing derivations as entailment checks in DL. We instantiate the approach for deciding acceptance and for assumption-set enumeration in the DL-instantiation of ABA under several central argumentation semantics, and empirically evaluate an implementation of the approach.","PeriodicalId":36616,"journal":{"name":"Comma","volume":"26 1","pages":"236-247"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83945867","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 revisit the foundations of ranking semantics for abstract argumenta- tion frameworks by observing that most existing approaches are incompatible with classical extension-based semantics. In particular, most ranking semantics violate the principle of admissibility, meaning that admissible arguments are not necessarily better ranked than inadmissible arguments. We propose new postulates for capturing said compatibility with classical extension-based semantics and present a new ranking semantics that complies with these postulates. This ranking semantics is based on the recently proposed notion of serialisability that allows to rank arguments according to the number of conflicts needed to be solved in order to include that argument in an admissible set.
{"title":"A Ranking Semantics for Abstract Argumentation Based on Serialisability","authors":"Lydia Blümel, Matthias Thimm","doi":"10.3233/FAIA220145","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3233/FAIA220145","url":null,"abstract":". We revisit the foundations of ranking semantics for abstract argumenta- tion frameworks by observing that most existing approaches are incompatible with classical extension-based semantics. In particular, most ranking semantics violate the principle of admissibility, meaning that admissible arguments are not necessarily better ranked than inadmissible arguments. We propose new postulates for capturing said compatibility with classical extension-based semantics and present a new ranking semantics that complies with these postulates. This ranking semantics is based on the recently proposed notion of serialisability that allows to rank arguments according to the number of conflicts needed to be solved in order to include that argument in an admissible set.","PeriodicalId":36616,"journal":{"name":"Comma","volume":"53 1","pages":"104-115"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86053473","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 explore the computational complexity of stability and relevance in incomplete argumentation frameworks (IAFs), abstract argumentation frameworks that encode qualitative uncertainty by distinguishing between certain and uncertain arguments and attacks. IAFs can be specified by, e.g., making uncertain arguments or attacks certain; the justification status of arguments in an IAF is determined on the basis of the certain arguments and attacks. An argument is stable if its justification status is the same in all specifications of the IAF. For arguments that are not stable in an IAF, the relevance problem is of interest: which uncertain arguments or attacks should be investigated for the argument to become stable? We redefine stability and define relevance for IAFs and study their complexity.
{"title":"Stability and Relevance in Incomplete Argumentation Frameworks","authors":"D. Odekerken, A. Borg, Floris Bex","doi":"10.3233/FAIA220159","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3233/FAIA220159","url":null,"abstract":". We explore the computational complexity of stability and relevance in incomplete argumentation frameworks (IAFs), abstract argumentation frameworks that encode qualitative uncertainty by distinguishing between certain and uncertain arguments and attacks. IAFs can be specified by, e.g., making uncertain arguments or attacks certain; the justification status of arguments in an IAF is determined on the basis of the certain arguments and attacks. An argument is stable if its justification status is the same in all specifications of the IAF. For arguments that are not stable in an IAF, the relevance problem is of interest: which uncertain arguments or attacks should be investigated for the argument to become stable? We redefine stability and define relevance for IAFs and study their complexity.","PeriodicalId":36616,"journal":{"name":"Comma","volume":"26 1","pages":"272-283"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79065330","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：