Related papers: Non-flat ABA is an Instance of Bipolar Argumentati…
We analyse the expressiveness of the two-valued semantics of abstract argumentation frameworks, normal logic programs and abstract dialectical frameworks. By expressiveness we mean the ability to encode a desired set of two-valued…
Abstract argumentation offers an appealing way of representing and evaluating arguments and counterarguments. This approach can be enhanced by a probability assignment to each argument. There are various interpretations that can be ascribed…
Abstract predicates are considered in this paper as abstraction technique for heap-separated configurations, and as genuine Prolog predicates which are translated straight into a corresponding formal language grammar used as validation…
Case-based reasoning networks are machine-learning models that make predictions based on similarity between the input and prototypical parts of training samples, called prototypes. Such models are able to explain each decision by pointing…
Dealing with uncertain, contradicting, and ambiguous information is still a central issue in Artificial Intelligence (AI). As a result, many formalisms have been proposed or adapted so as to consider non-monotonicity, with only a limited…
Alternating parity automata (APAs) provide a robust formalism for modelling infinite behaviours and play a central role in formal verification. Despite their widespread use, the algebraic theory underlying APAs has remained largely…
A negotiation process by 2 agents e1 and e2 can be interleaved by another negotiation process between, say, e1 and e3. The interleaving may alter the resource allocation assumed at the inception of the first negotiation process. Existing…
Dialectical frameworks are a unifying model of formal argumentation, where argumentative relations between arguments are represented by assigning acceptance conditions to atomic arguments. Their generality allow them to cover a number of…
Abstract argumentation frameworks are formal systems that facilitate obtaining conclusions from non-monotonic knowledge systems. Within such a system, an argumentation semantics is defined as a set of arguments with some desired qualities,…
In this paper we introduce a Conditional Answer Set Programming framework (Conditional ASP) for the definition of conditional extensions of Answer Set Programming (ASP). The approach builds on a conditional logic with typicality, and on the…
Argumentation has proved a useful tool in defining formal semantics for assumption-based reasoning by viewing a proof as a process in which proponents and opponents attack each others arguments by undercuts (attack to an argument's premise)…
The fundamental tension between availability and consistency shapes the design of distributed storage systems. Classical results capture extreme points of this trade-off: the CAP theorem shows that strong models like linearizability…
Causal abstraction is a promising theoretical framework for explainable artificial intelligence that defines when an interpretable high-level causal model is a faithful simplification of a low-level deep learning system. However, existing…
Within the area of computational models of argumentation, the instantiation-based approach is gaining more and more attention, not at least because meaningful input for Dung's abstract frameworks is provided in that way. In a nutshell, the…
Decision tree models, including random forests and gradient-boosted decision trees, are widely used in machine learning due to their high predictive performance. However, their complex structures often make them difficult to interpret,…
Social abstract argumentation is a principled way to assign values to conflicting (weighted) arguments. In this note we discuss the important property of the uniqueness of the model.
Different types of reasoning impose different structural demands on representational systems, yet no systematic account of these demands exists across psychology, AI, and philosophy of mind. I propose a framework identifying four structural…
A framework with sets of attacking arguments (SETAF) is an extension of the well-known Dung's Abstract Argumentation Frameworks (AAFs) that allows joint attacks on arguments. In this paper, we provide a translation from Normal Logic…
There is a growing interest in understanding arguments' strength in Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks (QBAFs). Most existing studies focus on attribution-based methods that explain an argument's strength by assigning importance…
The work reported here introduces Defeasible Logic Programming (DeLP), a formalism that combines results of Logic Programming and Defeasible Argumentation. DeLP provides the possibility of representing information in the form of weak rules…