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

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: 25 (5 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: 56 (13 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: 79 (3 UL)A dynamic approach for combining abstract argumentation semantics Dauphin, Jérémie ; ; 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: 43 (10 UL)Explainable ASP Dauphin, Jérémie ; in PRIMA 2019: Principles and Practice of Multi-Agent Systems - 22nd International Conference, Turin, Italy, October 28-31, 2019, Proceedings (2019) Despite its proven relevance, ASP (answer set programming) suffers from a lack of transparency in its outputs. Much like other popular artificial intelligence systems such as deep learning, the results do ... [more ▼] Despite its proven relevance, ASP (answer set programming) suffers from a lack of transparency in its outputs. Much like other popular artificial intelligence systems such as deep learning, the results do not come with any explanation to support their derivation. In this paper, we use a given answer set as guidance for a simplified top-down procedure of answer set semantics developed by Satoh and Iwayama to provide not only an explanation for the derivation (or non-derivation) of the atoms, but also an explanation for the consistency of the whole answer set itself. Additionally, we show that a full use of the Satoh-Iwayama procedure gives an explanation of why an atom is not present in any answer set. [less ▲] Detailed reference viewed: 98 (10 UL)A Dynamic Approach for Combining Abstract Argumentation Semantics – Technical Report Dauphin, Jérémie ; Cramer, Marcos ; van der Torre, Leon Report (2018) 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: 66 (12 UL)Technical online appendix to "A Structured Argumentation Framework for Modeling Debates in the Formal Sciences" Cramer, Marcos ; Dauphin, Jérémie Report (2018) Detailed reference viewed: 119 (12 UL)ASPIC-END: Structured Argumentation with Explanations and Natural Deduction Dauphin, Jérémie ; Cramer, Marcos in Theory and Applications of Formal Argumentation (2018) We propose ASPIC-END, an adaptation of the structured argumentation framework ASPIC+ which can incorporate explanations and natural deduction style arguments. We discuss an instantiation of ASPIC-END that ... [more ▼] We propose ASPIC-END, an adaptation of the structured argumentation framework ASPIC+ which can incorporate explanations and natural deduction style arguments. We discuss an instantiation of ASPIC-END that models argumentation about explanations of semantic paradoxes (e.g. the Liar paradox), and we show that ASPIC-END satisfies rationality postulates akin to those satisfied by ASPIC+. [less ▲] Detailed reference viewed: 242 (24 UL)Dialogue Games for Enforcement of Argument Acceptance and Rejection via Attack Removal Dauphin, Jérémie ; in International Conference on Principles and Practice of Multi-Agent Systems (2018) Argumentation is dynamic in nature and most commonly exists in dialogical form between different agents trying to convince each other. While abstract argumentation framework are mostly static, many ... [more ▼] Argumentation is dynamic in nature and most commonly exists in dialogical form between different agents trying to convince each other. While abstract argumentation framework are mostly static, many studies have focused on dynamical aspects and changes to these static frameworks. An important problem is the one of argument enforcement, modifying an argumentation framework in order to ensure that a certain argument is accepted. In this paper, we use dialogue games to provide an exhaustive list of minimal sets of attacks such that when removed, a given argument is credulously accepted with respect to preferred semantics. We then extend the method to enforce other acceptability statuses and cope with sets of arguments. [less ▲] Detailed reference viewed: 85 (13 UL)Extended Explanatory Argumentation Frameworks Dauphin, Jérémie ; Cramer, Marcos in Theory and Applications of Formal Argumentation (2018) Multiple extensions of Dung's argumentation frameworks (AFs) have been proposed in order to model features of argumentation that cannot be directly modeled in AFs. One technique that has already ... [more ▼] Multiple extensions of Dung's argumentation frameworks (AFs) have been proposed in order to model features of argumentation that cannot be directly modeled in AFs. One technique that has already previously proven useful to study and combine such extensions is the meta-argumentation methodology involving the notion of a flattening. In order to faithfully model the interaction between explanation argumentation in scientific debates, Šešelja and Straßer have introduced Explanatory Argumentation Frameworks (EAFs). In this paper, we first prove that the flattening technique works as expected for recursive (higher-order) attacks. Then we apply this technique in order to combine EAFs with multiple other extensions that have been proposed to AFs, namely with recursive attacks, joint attacks and a support relation between arguments. This gives rise to Extended Explanatory Argumentation Frameworks (EEAFs). We illustrate the applicability of EEAFs by using them to model a piece of argumentation from a research-level philosophy book. [less ▲] Detailed reference viewed: 242 (20 UL)Abstract and Concrete Decision Graphs for Choosing Extensions of Argumentation Frameworks - Technical Report Dauphin, Jérémie ; Cramer, Marcos ; van der Torre, Leon Report (2018) Most argumentation semantics allow for multiple extensions, which raises the question of how to choose among extensions. We propose to study this question as a decision problem. Inspired by decision trees ... [more ▼] Most argumentation semantics allow for multiple extensions, which raises the question of how to choose among extensions. We propose to study this question as a decision problem. Inspired by decision trees commonly used in economics, we introduce the notion of a decision graph for deciding between the multiple extensions of a given AF in a given semantics. We distinguish between abstract decision graphs and concrete instantiations thereof. Inspired by the principle-based approach to argumentation, we formulate two principles that mappings from argumentation frameworks to decision graphs should satisfy, the principle of decision-graph directionality and the one of directional decision-making. We then propose a concrete instantiation of decision graphs, which satisfies one of these principles. Finally, we discuss the potential for further research based on this novel methodology. [less ▲] Detailed reference viewed: 67 (4 UL)Argumentation with Goals for Clinical Decision Support in Multimorbidity ; Dauphin, Jérémie ; et al in Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems (2018) The present work proposes a computational argumentation system equipped with goal seeking to combine independently generated recommendations for handling multimorbidity. Detailed reference viewed: 43 (8 UL)Abstract and Concrete Decision Graphs for Choosing Extensions of Argumentation Frameworks Dauphin, Jérémie ; Cramer, Marcos ; van der Torre, Leon in Computational Models of Argument (2018) Most argumentation semantics allow for multiple extensions, which raises the question of how to choose among extensions. We propose to study this question as a decision problem. Inspired by decision trees ... [more ▼] Most argumentation semantics allow for multiple extensions, which raises the question of how to choose among extensions. We propose to study this question as a decision problem. Inspired by decision trees commonly used in economics, we introduce the notion of a decision graph for deciding between the multiple extensions of a given AF in a given semantics. We distinguish between abstract decision graphs and concrete instantiations thereof. Inspired by the principle-based approach to argumentation, we formulate two principles that mappings from argumentation frameworks to decision graphs should satisfy, the principles of decision-graph directionality and that of directional decision-making. We then propose a concrete instantiation of decision graphs, which satisfies one of these principles. Finally, we discuss the potential for further research based on this novel methodology. [less ▲] Detailed reference viewed: 102 (16 UL) |
||