Related papers: Abstractly Interpreting Argumentation Frameworks f…
Despite a growing literature on explaining neural networks, no consensus has been reached on how to explain a neural network decision or how to evaluate an explanation. Our contributions in this paper are twofold. First, we investigate…
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.…
In David Schmidt's PhD work he explored the use of denotational semantics as a programming language. It was part of an effort to not only treat formal semantics as specifications but also as interpreters and input to compiler generators.…
The issue of representing attacks to attacks in argumentation is receiving an increasing attention as a useful conceptual modelling tool in several contexts. In this paper we present AFRA, a formalism encompassing unlimited recursive…
Argument mining is natural language processing technology aimed at identifying arguments in text. Furthermore, the approach is being developed to identify the premises and claims of those arguments, and to identify the relationships between…
Over the last decades the development of ASP has brought about an expressive modeling language powered by highly performant systems. At the same time, it gets more and more difficult to provide semantic underpinnings capturing the resulting…
In this paper, we discuss necessary and sufficient explanations for formal argumentation - the question whether and why a certain argument can be accepted (or not) under various extension-based semantics. Given a framework with which…
We consider the problem of modularizing control flow in a generic abstract interpretation framework. A generic abstract interpretation framework is not truly flexible if it does not allow interpreting with different path- and…
Decision-making usually takes five steps: identifying the problem, collecting data, extracting evidence, identifying pro and con arguments, and making decisions. Focusing on extracting evidence, this paper presents a hybrid model that…
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…
In order to make argumentation-based inference contestable, it is crucial to explain what changes can achieve a desired (instead of the contested) inference result. To this end, we introduce strength change explanations for quantitative…
Gradual semantics within abstract argumentation associate a numeric score with every argument in a system, which represents the level of acceptability of this argument, and from which a preference ordering over arguments can be derived.…
We develop a model of abduction in abstract argumentation, where changes to an argumentation framework act as hypotheses to explain the support of an observation. We present dialogical proof theories for the main decision problems (i.e.,…
Argumentation is a process of evaluating and comparing a set of arguments. A way to compare them consists in using a ranking-based semantics which rank-order arguments from the most to the least acceptable ones. Recently, a number of such…
We propose a new, structured, logic-based framework for legal reasoning and argumentation: Instead of using a single, unstructured meaning space, theory graphs organize knowledge and inference into collections of modular meaning spaces…
Understanding the decisions of tree-based ensembles and their relationships is pivotal for machine learning model interpretation. Recent attempts to mitigate the human-in-the-loop interpretation challenge have explored the extraction of the…
In the context of abstract argumentation, we present the benefits of considering temporality, i.e. the order in which arguments are enunciated, as well as causality. We propose a formal method to rewrite the concepts of acyclic abstract…
Ontology is a popular method for knowledge representation in different domains, including the legal domain, and description logics (DL) is commonly used as its description language. To handle reasoning based on inconsistent DL-based legal…
There have been a number of developments in measuring inconsistency in logic-based representations of knowledge. In contrast, the development of inconsistency measures for computational models of argument has been limited. To address this…
Detecting semantic arguments of a predicate word has been conventionally modeled as a sentence-level task. The typical reader, however, perfectly interprets predicate-argument relations in a much wider context than just the sentence where…