Related papers: Technical report of "Empirical Study on Human Eval…
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…
Argumentation is a very active research field of Artificial Intelligence concerned with the representation and evaluation of arguments used in dialogues between humans and/or artificial agents. Acceptability semantics of formal…
In this position paper, we propose a reasoning framework that can model the reasoning process underlying natural language inferences. The framework is based on the semantic tableau method, a well-studied proof system in formal logic. Like…
Argumentation frameworks, consisting of arguments and an attack relation representing conflicts, are fundamental for formally studying reasoning under conflicting information. We use methods from mathematical logic, specifically…
We introduce Forecasting Argumentation Frameworks (FAFs), a novel argumentation-based methodology for forecasting informed by recent judgmental forecasting research. FAFs comprise update frameworks which empower (human or artificial) agents…
In formal argumentation, a distinction can be made between extension-based semantics, where sets of arguments are either (jointly) accepted or not, and ranking-based semantics, where grades of acceptability are assigned to arguments.…
Establishing stable mappings between natural language expressions and visual percepts is a foundational problem for both cognitive science and artificial intelligence. Humans routinely ground linguistic reference in noisy, ambiguous…
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…
Abstract argumentation frameworks (AFs) provide a formal setting to analyze many forms of reasoning with conflicting information. While the expressiveness of general infinite AFs make them a tempting tool for modeling many kinds of…
We consider multi-agent argumentation, where each agent's view of the arguments is encoded as an argumentation framework (AF). Then we study deliberative processes than can occur on this basis. We think of a deliberative process as taking…
In dialogical argumentation it is often assumed that the involved parties always correctly identify the intended statements posited by each other, realize all of the associated relations, conform to the three acceptability states (accepted,…
Cycles of attacking arguments pose non-trivial issues in Dung style argumentation theory, apparent behavioural difference between odd and even length cycles being a notable one. While a few methods were proposed for treating them, to - in…
Computational argumentation offers formal frameworks for transparent, verifiable reasoning but has traditionally been limited by its reliance on domain-specific information and extensive feature engineering. In contrast, LLMs excel at…
Dung's abstract argumentation framework consists of a set of interacting arguments and a series of semantics for evaluating them. Those semantics partition the powerset of the set of arguments into two classes: extensions and…
We evaluate four computational models of explanation in Bayesian networks by comparing model predictions to human judgments. In two experiments, we present human participants with causal structures for which the models make divergent…
In this paper we provide a first analysis of the research questions that arise when dealing with the problem of communicating pieces of formal argumentation through natural language interfaces. It is a generally held opinion that formal…
Humans currently use arguments for explaining choices which are already made, or for evaluating potential choices. Each potential choice has usually pros and cons of various strengths. In spite of the usefulness of arguments in a decision…
The connections among natural language processing and argumentation theory are becoming stronger in the latest years, with a growing amount of works going in this direction, in different scenarios and applying heterogeneous techniques. In…
Argumentation is a central subarea of Artificial Intelligence (AI) for modeling and reasoning about arguments. The semantics of abstract argumentation frameworks (AFs) is given by sets of arguments (extensions) and conditions on the…
We present a computer-supported approach for the logical analysis and conceptual explicitation of argumentative discourse. Computational hermeneutics harnesses recent progresses in automated reasoning for higher-order logics and aims at…