![]() ; Gabbay, Dov M. ![]() in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (2020) The notion of forgetting, as considered in the famous paper by Lin and Reiter in 1994 has been extensively studied in classical logic and more recently, in non-monotonic formalisms like logic programming ... [more ▼] The notion of forgetting, as considered in the famous paper by Lin and Reiter in 1994 has been extensively studied in classical logic and more recently, in non-monotonic formalisms like logic programming. In this paper, we convey the idea of forgetting to another major AI formalism, namely Dung-style argumentation frameworks. Our approach is axiomatic-driven and not limited to any specific semantics: we propose semantical and syntactical desiderata encoding different criteria for what forgetting an argument might mean; analyze how these criteria relate to each other; and check whether the criteria can be satisfied in general. The analysis is done for a number of widely used argumentation semantics. Our investigation shows that almost all desiderata are individually satisfiable. However, combinations of semantical and/or syntactical conditions reveal a much more interesting landscape. For instance, we found that the ad hoc approach to forgetting an argument, i.e., by the syntactical removal of the argument and all of its associated attacks, is too restrictive and only compatible with the two weakest semantical desiderata. Amongst the several interesting combinations identified, we showed that one satisfies a notion of minimal change and presented an algorithm that given an AF F and argument x, constructs a suitable AF G satisfying the conditions in the combination. [less ▲] Detailed reference viewed: 45 (2 UL)![]() Gabbay, Dov M. ![]() in Computational Models of Argument - Proceedings of COMMA 2016, Potsdam Germany, 12-16 September, 2016. (2016) Detailed reference viewed: 30 (0 UL)![]() ![]() Gabbay, Dov M. ![]() in Computational Models of Rationality, Essays dedicated to Gabriele Kern-Isberner on the occasion of her 60th birthday (2016) Detailed reference viewed: 55 (0 UL)![]() Gabbay, Dov M. ![]() in Logica Universalis (2015), 9(4), 411--473 Detailed reference viewed: 115 (1 UL)![]() Gabbay, Dov M. ![]() in Logica Universalis (2015), abs/1503.05501 There is a generic way to add any new feature to a system. It involves 1) identifying the basic units which build up the system and 2) introducing the new feature to each of these basic units. In the case ... [more ▼] There is a generic way to add any new feature to a system. It involves 1) identifying the basic units which build up the system and 2) introducing the new feature to each of these basic units. In the case where the system is argumentation and the feature is probabilistic we have the following. The basic units are: a. the nature of the arguments involved; b. the membership relation in the set S of arguments; c. the attack relation; and d. the choice of extensions. Generically to add a new aspect (probabilistic, or fuzzy, or temporal, etc) to an argumentation network hS, R i can be done by adding this feature to each component a – d. This is a brute-force method and may yield a non-intuitive or meaningful result. A better way is to meaningfully translate the object system into another target system which does have the aspect required and then let the target system endow the aspect on the initial system. In our case we translate argumentation into classical propositional logic and get probabilistic argumentation from the translation. Of course what we get depends on how we translate. In fact, in this paper we introduce probabilistic semantics to abstract argumentation theory based on the equational approach to argumentation networks. We then compare our semantics with existing proposals in the literature including the approaches by M. Thimm and by A. Hunter. Our methodology in general is discussed in the conclusion. [less ▲] Detailed reference viewed: 89 (5 UL)![]() Gabbay, Dov M. ![]() in Computational Models of Argument - Proceedings of COMMA 2014, Atholl Palace Hotel, Scottish Highlands, UK, September 9-12, 2014 (2014) Detailed reference viewed: 43 (2 UL)![]() Gabbay, Dov M. ![]() in Journal of Logic and Computation (2014), 24(6), 1253--1277 Detailed reference viewed: 119 (1 UL)![]() Gabbay, Dov M. ![]() in Logica Universalis (2014), abs/1408.6706 Detailed reference viewed: 65 (6 UL)![]() Gabbay, Dov M. ![]() in Fisher, Michael; Torre, Leon; Dastani, Mehdi (Eds.) et al Computational Logic in Multi-Agent Systems (2012) In this paper, we propose a numerical approach to the problem of merging of argumentation networks. The idea is to consider an augmented network containing the arguments and attacks of all networks to be ... [more ▼] In this paper, we propose a numerical approach to the problem of merging of argumentation networks. The idea is to consider an augmented network containing the arguments and attacks of all networks to be merged and then associate a weight to each of its components based on how they are perceived by the agents associated with the local networks. The combined weighted network is then used to define a system of equations from which the overall strength of the arguments is calculated. [less ▲] Detailed reference viewed: 134 (0 UL)![]() Gabbay, Dov M. ![]() in Review of Symbolic Logic (2008), 1(03), 267304 Detailed reference viewed: 48 (2 UL)![]() ![]() Gabbay, Dov M. ![]() in Handbook of Philosophical Logic (2008) Detailed reference viewed: 19 (1 UL)![]() Gabbay, Dov M. ![]() ![]() in Formal Models of Belief Change in Rational Agents (2007) In this paper, we consider a number of different ways of reasoning about voting as a problem of conciliating contradictory interests. The mechanisms that do the reconciliation are belief revision and be ... [more ▼] In this paper, we consider a number of different ways of reasoning about voting as a problem of conciliating contradictory interests. The mechanisms that do the reconciliation are belief revision and be- lief merging. By investigating the relationship between different voting strategies and their associated counterparts in revision theory, we find that whereas the counting mechanism of the voting process is more easily done at the meta-level in belief merging, it can be brought to the object level in base revision. In the former case, the counting can b e tweaked according to the aggregation procedure used, whereas in base revision, we can only rely on the notion of minimal change and hence the syntactical representation of the voters’ preferences plays a crucial part in the process. This highlights the similarities between the revi sion approaches on the one hand and voting on the other, but also opens up a numb er of interesting questions. [less ▲] Detailed reference viewed: 34 (0 UL) |
||