Browse ORBi

- What it is and what it isn't
- Green Road / Gold Road?
- Ready to Publish. Now What?
- How can I support the OA movement?
- Where can I learn more?

ORBi

A First Approach to Argumentation Label Functions ; Dauphin, Jérémie in Computational Models of Argument - Proceedings of COMMA 2020, Perugia Italy, September 4-11, 2020 (2020) An important approach to abstract argumentation is the labeling-based approach, in which one makes use of labelings that assign to each argument one of three labels: in, out or und. In this paper, we ... [more ▼] An important approach to abstract argumentation is the labeling-based approach, in which one makes use of labelings that assign to each argument one of three labels: in, out or und. In this paper, we address the question, which of the twenty-seven functions from the set of labels to the set of labels can be represented by an argumentation framework. We prove that in preferred, complete and grounded semantics, eleven label functions can be represented in this way while sixteen label functions cannot be represented by any argumentation framework. We show how this analysis of label functions can be applied to prove an impossibility result: Argumentation frameworks extended with a certain kind of weak attack relation cannot be flattened to the standard Dung argumentation frameworks. [less ▲] Detailed reference viewed: 14 (1 UL)Argumentation Label Functions - Technical Report ; Dauphin, Jérémie Report (2020) An important approach to abstract argumentation is the labeling-based approach, in which one makes use of labelings that assign to each argument one of three labels: in, out or und. In this paper, we ... [more ▼] An important approach to abstract argumentation is the labeling-based approach, in which one makes use of labelings that assign to each argument one of three labels: in, out or und. In this paper, we address the question, which of the twenty-seven functions from the set of labels to the set of labels can be represented by an argumentation framework. We prove that in preferred, complete and grounded semantics, eleven labeling functions can be represented in this way while sixteen labeling functions cannot be represented by any argumentation framework. We show how this analysis of labeling functions can be applied to prove an impossibility result: Argumentation frameworks extended with a certain kind of weak attack relation cannot be flattened to the standard Dung argumentation frameworks. [less ▲] Detailed reference viewed: 45 (7 UL)A Structured Argumentation Framework for Modeling Debates in the Formal Sciences ; Dauphin, Jérémie in Journal for General Philosophy of Science (2019) Scientific research in the formal sciences comes in multiple degrees of formality: fully formal work; rigorous proofs that practitioners know to be formalizable in principle; and informal work like rough ... [more ▼] Scientific research in the formal sciences comes in multiple degrees of formality: fully formal work; rigorous proofs that practitioners know to be formalizable in principle; and informal work like rough proof sketches and considerations about the advantages and disadvantages of various formal systems. This informal work includes informal and semi-formal debates between formal scientists, e.g. about the acceptability of foundational principles and proposed axiomatizations. In this paper, we propose to use the methodology of structured argumentation theory to produce a formal model of such informal and semi-formal debates in the formal sciences. For this purpose, we propose ASPIC-END, an adaptation of the structured argumentation framework ASPIC+ which can incorporate natural deduction style arguments and explanations. We illustrate the applicability of the framework to debates in the formal sciences by presenting a simple model of some arguments about proposed solutions to the Liar paradox, and by discussing a more extensive - but still preliminary - model of parts of the debate that mathematicians had about the Axiom of Choice in the early 20th century. [less ▲] Detailed reference viewed: 161 (17 UL)A dynamic approach for combining abstract argumentation semantics Dauphin, Jérémie ; ; van der Torre, Leon in Dynamics, Uncertainty and Reasoning (2019) Abstract argumentation semantics provide a direct relation from an argumentation framework to corresponding sets of acceptable arguments, or equivalently to labeling functions. Instead, we study step-wise ... [more ▼] Abstract argumentation semantics provide a direct relation from an argumentation framework to corresponding sets of acceptable arguments, or equivalently to labeling functions. Instead, we study step-wise update relations on argumentation frameworks whose fixpoints represent the labeling functions on the arguments. We make use of this dynamic approach in order to study novel ways of combining abstract argumentation semantics. In particular, we introduce the notion of a merge of two argumentation semantics, which is defined in such a way that the merge of the preferred and the grounded semantics is the complete semantics. Finally we consider how to define new semantics using the merge operator, in particular how meaningfully combine features of naive-based and complete-based semantics. [less ▲] Detailed reference viewed: 59 (11 UL)Machine Argumentation. Can We Replace Taxi Drivers by Robots? Gabbay, Dov M. ; ; Dauphin, Jérémie et al in Natural Argument, A tribute to John Woods (2019) We need ethical non-monotonic action logics to control machines which interact heavily with humans. Such logics face special problems and require features which we need to recognise and to address. We ... [more ▼] We need ethical non-monotonic action logics to control machines which interact heavily with humans. Such logics face special problems and require features which we need to recognise and to address. We believe that injecting argumentation methods into action pre-conditions is possibly the way to proceed to model what is needed. To get an idea of what is needed we must investigate a typical problem of replacing a human with a robot operating in a highly interactive environment. This paper focuses on replacing a human taxi driver by a robot. Robot driven cars are already under production and so there is an urgent need for modelling the kind of Artificial Intelligence/Logic/Norms/Ethics which is to be involved and installed in the mind of the Robot. This is research in progress. [less ▲] Detailed reference viewed: 135 (6 UL)SCF2 - an Argumentation Semantics for Rational Human Judgments on Argument Acceptability ; van der Torre, Leon in Proceedings of the 8th Workshop on Dynamics of Knowledge and Belief (DKB-2019) and the 7th Workshop KI \& Kognition (KIK-2019) co-located with 44nd German Conference on Artificial Intelligence (KI 2019), Kassel, Germany, September 23, 2019 (2019) 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 ... [more ▼] 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 rational judgment on the acceptability of arguments? There are two systematic ways to approach this research question: A normative perspective is provided by the principle-based approach, in which semantics are evaluated based on their satisfaction of various normatively desirable principles. A descriptive perspective is provided by the empirical approach, in which cognitive studies are conducted to determine which semantics best predicts human judgments about arguments. In this paper, we combine both approaches to motivate a new argumentation semantics called SCF2. For this purpose, we introduce and motivate two new principles and show that no semantics from the literature satisfies both of them. We define SCF2 and prove that it satisfies both new principles. Furthermore, we discuss findings of a recent empirical cognitive study that provide additional support to SCF2. [less ▲] Detailed reference viewed: 51 (0 UL) |
||