References of "Liao, Beishui"
     in
Bookmark and Share    
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailBase Argumentation as an Abstraction of Deductive Argumentation
Chen, Jinsheng; Liao, Beishui; van der Torre, Leon UL

in Baroni, Pietro; Benzmüller, Christoph; Wáng, Yì N. (Eds.) Logic and Argumentation - 4th International Conference, CLAR 2021, Hangzhou, China, October 20-22, 2021, Proceedings (2021)

Base argumentation is a logic-based instantiation of abstract argumentation. Each base argument is a subset of the given knowledge base. In this paper, we show that base argumentation satisfies some ... [more ▼]

Base argumentation is a logic-based instantiation of abstract argumentation. Each base argument is a subset of the given knowledge base. In this paper, we show that base argumentation satisfies some rationality postulates, and that base argumentation is equivalent to deductive argumentation under complete semantics. Due to its simplicity, base argumentation can be seen as an abstraction of deductive argumentation. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 23 (0 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailArguing coalitions in abstract argumentation
Qiao, Lisha; Shen, Yiqi; Yu, Liuwen et al

in Liao, Beishui; Luo, Jieting; van der Torre, Leon (Eds.) Logics for New-Generation AI 2021 (2021)

In this paper, we are interested in different ways in which agents can collaborate in abstract agent argumentation. First, if arguments are accepted when they are put forward by more than one agent, then ... [more ▼]

In this paper, we are interested in different ways in which agents can collaborate in abstract agent argumentation. First, if arguments are accepted when they are put forward by more than one agent, then agents can put forward arguments from other agents of the coalition. Second, agents can put forward arguments to defend argu- ments from other agents of the coalition. For example, in expert opinion, a domain expert can put forward an argument defending an argument made by a politician, even when the politician cannot judge the correctness of the argument. Third, agents from a coalition can collectively defend an argument they share, without being able to defend the argument individually. In this paper, we formalize the different kinds of collaboration in abstract agent argumentation, and we illustrate the coalition for- mation with a case study in political debate. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 9 (0 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailFrom Classical to Non-monotonic Deontic Logic Using ASPIC+
Dong, Huimin; Liao, Beishui; Markovich, Réka UL et al

in Logic, Rationality, and Interaction - 7th International Workshop LORI 2019, Chongqing, China, October 18-21, 2019, Proceedings (2019)

In this paper we use formal argumentation to design non-monotonic deontic logics, based on two monotonic deontic logics. In particular, we use the structured argumentation theory ASPIC􀀀 to define non ... [more ▼]

In this paper we use formal argumentation to design non-monotonic deontic logics, based on two monotonic deontic logics. In particular, we use the structured argumentation theory ASPIC􀀀 to define non-monotonic variants of well-understood modal logics. We illustrate the approach using argumentation about free-choice permission. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 93 (1 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailBuilding Jiminy Cricket: An Architecture for Moral Agreements Among Stakeholders
Liao, Beishui; Slavkovik, Marija; van der Torre, Leon UL

in AAAI/ACM Artificial Intelligence, Ethics and Society (2018)

An autonomous system is constructed by a manufacturer, operates in a society subject to norms and laws, and is interacting with end-users. We address the challenge of how the moral values and views of all ... [more ▼]

An autonomous system is constructed by a manufacturer, operates in a society subject to norms and laws, and is interacting with end-users. We address the challenge of how the moral values and views of all stakeholders can be integrated and reflected in the moral behaviour of the autonomous system. We propose an artificial moral agent architecture that uses techniques from normative systems and formal argumentation to reach moral agreements among stakeholders. We show how our architecture can be used not only for ethical practical reasoning and collaborative decision-making, but also for the explanation of such moral behavior. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 63 (7 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailPrioritized norms in formal argumentation
Liao, Beishui; Oren, Nir; van der Torre, Leon UL et al

in Journal of Logic and Computation (2018)

To resolve conflicts amongst norms, various non-monotonic formalisms can be used to perform prioritized normative reasoning. Meanwhile, formal argumentation provides a way to represent non-monotonic ... [more ▼]

To resolve conflicts amongst norms, various non-monotonic formalisms can be used to perform prioritized normative reasoning. Meanwhile, formal argumentation provides a way to represent non-monotonic logics. In this paper we propose a representation of prioritized normative reasoning by argumentation. Using hierarchical abstract normative systems (HANS), we define three kinds of prioritized normative reasoning approaches called Greedy, Reduction and Optimization. Then, after formulating an argumentation theory for a HANS, we show that for a totally ordered HANS, Greedy and Reduction can be represented in argumentation by applying the weakest link and the last link principles, respectively, and Optimization can be represented by introducing additional defeats capturing the idea that for each argument that contains a norm not belonging to the maximal obeyable set then this argument should be rejected. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 145 (12 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailRepresentation Equivalences among Argumentation Frameworks
Liao, Beishui; van der Torre, Leon UL

in Computational Models of Argument (2018)

In Dung’s abstract argumentation theory, an extension can be represented by subsets of it in the sense that from each of these subsets, the extension can be obtained again by iteratively applying the ... [more ▼]

In Dung’s abstract argumentation theory, an extension can be represented by subsets of it in the sense that from each of these subsets, the extension can be obtained again by iteratively applying the characteristic function. Such so-called regular representations can be used to differentiate argumentation frameworks having the same extensions. In this paper we provide a full characterization of relations between seven different types of representation equivalence. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 58 (4 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailPrioritized Norms and Defaults in Formal Argumentation
Liao, Beishui; Oren, Nir; van der Torre, Leon UL et al

in Deontic Logic and Normative Systems (2016) (2016)

Deontic logic sentences define what an agent ought to do when faced with a set of norms. These norms may come into conflict such that a priority ordering over them is necessary to resolve these conflicts ... [more ▼]

Deontic logic sentences define what an agent ought to do when faced with a set of norms. These norms may come into conflict such that a priority ordering over them is necessary to resolve these conflicts. Dung's seminal paper raised the - so far open - challenge of how to use formal argumentation to represent non monotonic logics, highlighting argumentation's value in exchanging, communicating and resolving possibly conflicting viewpoints in distributed scenarios. In this paper, we propose a formal framework to study various properties of prioritized non monotonic reasoning in formal argumentation, in line with this idea. More precisely, we show how a version of prioritized default logic and Brewka-Eiter's construction in answer set programming can be obtained in argumentation via the weakest and last link principles. We also show how to represent Hansen's recent construction for prioritized normative reasoning by adding arguments using weak contraposition via permissive norms, and their relationship to Caminada's "hang yourself" arguments. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 119 (10 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailPresent and Future of Formal Argumentation
van der Torre, Leon UL; Giacomin, Massimiliano; Liao, Beishui et al

in Dagstuhl Reports (2016)

This report documents the program and the outcomes of Dagstuhl Perspectives Workshop 15362 “Present and Future of Formal Argumentation”. The goal of this Dagstuhl Perspectives Workshop was to gather the ... [more ▼]

This report documents the program and the outcomes of Dagstuhl Perspectives Workshop 15362 “Present and Future of Formal Argumentation”. The goal of this Dagstuhl Perspectives Workshop was to gather the world leading experts in formal argumentation in order to develop a SWOT (Strength, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) analysis of the current state of the research in this field and to draw accordingly some strategic lines to ensure its successful development in the future. A critical survey of the field has been carried out through individual presentations and collective discussions. Moreover, working group activity lead to identify several open problems in argumentation. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 131 (11 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailEncompassing Uncertainty in Argumentation Schemes.
van der Torre, Leon UL; Baroni, Pietro; Giacomin, Massimiliano et al

in Frontiers and Connections between Argumentation Theory and Natural Language Processing 2014. (2014)

In existing literature, little attention has been paid to the problems of how the un- certainty reflected by natural language text (e.g. verbal and linguistic uncertainty) can be explicitly formulated in ... [more ▼]

In existing literature, little attention has been paid to the problems of how the un- certainty reflected by natural language text (e.g. verbal and linguistic uncertainty) can be explicitly formulated in argumentation schemes, and how argumentation schemes enriched with various types of uncertainty can be exploited to support argumentation mining and evaluation. In this paper, we focus on the first problem, and introduce some preliminary ideas about how to clas- sify and encompass uncertainty in argu- mentation schemes [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 79 (5 UL)