Related papers: On the Acceptability of Arguments in Preference-Ba…
We introduce a logic for reasoning about evidence that essentially views evidence as a function from prior beliefs (before making an observation) to posterior beliefs (after making the observation). We provide a sound and complete…
The combination of argumentation and probability paves the way to new accounts of qualitative and quantitative uncertainty, thereby offering new theoretical and applicative opportunities. Due to a variety of interests, probabilistic…
In logic programming under the answer set semantics, preferences on rules are used to choose which of the conflicting rules are applied. Many interesting semantics have been proposed. Brewka and Eiter's Principle I expresses the basic…
In this paper, we present a general framework for ranking sets of arguments in abstract argumentation based on their plausibility of acceptance. We present a generalisation of Dung's extension semantics as extension-ranking semantics, which…
Arguments are essential objects in DirectDemocracyP2P, where they can occur both in association with signatures for petitions, or in association with other debated decisions, such as bug sorting by importance. The arguments of a signer on a…
We study the robustness of Bayesian persuasion to uncertainty about the receiver's preferences. We analyze two conceptually distinct notions: continuity, in which only the modeler lacks precise knowledge, but where the model's predictions…
I consider decision-making constrained by considerations of morality, rationality, or other virtues. The decision maker (DM) has a true preference over outcomes, but feels compelled to choose among outcomes that are top-ranked by some…
We endow prioritised default logic (PDL) with argumentation semantics using the ASPIC+ framework for structured argumentation, and prove that the conclusions of the justified arguments are exactly the prioritised default extensions.…
The idea of fully accepting statements when the evidence has rendered them probable enough faces a number of difficulties. We leave the interpretation of probability largely open, but attempt to suggest a contextual approach to full belief.…
The paper describes an extension of well-founded semantics for logic programs with two types of negation. In this extension information about preferences between rules can be expressed in the logical language and derived dynamically. This…
We argue that robustness of explanations---i.e., that similar inputs should give rise to similar explanations---is a key desideratum for interpretability. We introduce metrics to quantify robustness and demonstrate that current methods do…
Weighted gradual semantics provide an acceptability degree to each argument representing the strength of the argument, computed based on factors including background evidence for the argument, and taking into account interactions between…
In this work we generalize standard Decision Theory by assuming that two outcomes can also be incomparable. Two motivating scenarios show how incomparability may be helpful to represent those situations where, due to lack of information,…
This paper introduces the notion of value-based argumentation frameworks, an extension of the standard argumentation frameworks proposed by Dung, which are able toshow how rational decision is possible in cases where arguments derive their…
Much like admissibility is the key concept underlying preferred semantics, strong admissibility is the key concept underlying grounded semantics, as membership of a strongly admissible set is sufficient to show membership of the grounded…
Several rules for social choice are examined from a unifying point of view that looks at them as procedures for revising a system of degrees of belief in accordance with certain specified logical constraints. Belief is here a social…
In abstract argumentation theory, many argumentation semantics have been proposed for evaluating argumentation frameworks. This paper is based on the following research question: Which semantics corresponds well to what humans consider a…
When proving theorems from large sets of logical assertions, it can be helpful to restrict the search for a proof to those assertions that are relevant, that is, closely related to the theorem in some sense. For example, in the Watson…
Abstract argumentation is a popular toolkit for modeling, evaluating, and comparing arguments. Relationships between arguments are specified in argumentation frameworks (AFs), and conditions are placed on sets (extensions) of arguments that…
We present a propositional logic %which can be used to reason about the uncertainty of events, where the uncertainty is modeled by a set of probability measures assigning an interval of probability to each event. We give a sound and…