A new approach for preference-based argumentation frameworks

Dung’s argumentation framework consists of a set of arguments and an attack relation among them. Arguments are evaluated and acceptable sets of them, called extensions, are computed using a given semantics. Each extension represents a coherent position. In the literature, several proposals have extended this framework in order to take into account the strength of arguments. The basic idea is to ignore an attack if the attacked argument is stronger than (or preferred to) its attacker. Semantics are then applied using only the remaining attacks. In this paper, we show that those proposals behave correctly when the attack relation is symmetric. However, when it is asymmetric, conflicting extensions may be computed leading to unintended conclusions. We propose an approach that guarantees conflict-free extensions. This approach presents two novelties: the first one is that it takes into account preferences at the semantics level rather than the attack level. The idea is to extend existing semantics with preferences. In case preferences are not available or do not conflict with the attacks, the extensions of the new semantics coincide with those of the basic ones. The second novelty of our approach is that a semantics is defined as a dominance relation on the powerset of the set of arguments. The extensions (under a semantics) are the maximal elements of the dominance relation. Such an approach makes it possible not only to compute the extensions of a framework but also to compare its non-extensions. We start by proposing three dominance relations that generalize respectively stable, preferred and grounded semantics with preferences. Then, we focus on stable semantics and provide full characterizations of its dominance relations and those of its generalized versions. Complexity results are provided. Finally, we show that an instance of the proposed framework retrieves the preferred sub-theories which were proposed in the context of handling inconsistency in weighted knowledge bases.     

A logic of argumentation for specification and verification of abstract argumentation frameworks

In this paper, we propose a logic of argumentation for the specification and verification (LA4SV) of requirements on Dung??s abstract argumentation frameworks. We distinguish three kinds of decision problems for argumentation verification, called extension verification, framework verification, and specification verification respectively. For example, given a political requirement like ??if the argument to increase taxes is accepted, then the argument to increase services must be accepted too,?? we can either verify an extension of acceptable arguments, or all extensions of an argumentation framework, or all extensions of all argumentation frameworks satisfying a framework specification. We introduce the logic of argumentation verification to specify such requirements, and we represent the three verification problems of argumentation as model checking and theorem proving properties of the logic. Moreover, we recast the logic of argumentation verification in a modal framework, in order to express multiple extensions, and properties like transitivity and reflexivity of the attack relation. Finally, we introduce a logic of meta-argumentation where abstract argumentation is used to reason about abstract argumentation itself. We define the logic of meta-argumentation using the fibring methodology in such a way to represent attack relations not only among arguments but also among attacks. We show how to use this logic to verify the requirements of argumentation frameworks where higher-order attacks are allowed [A preliminary version of the logic of argumentation compliance was called the logic of abstract argumentation?(2005).]     

Reasoning about preferences in argumentation frameworks

The abstract nature of Dung's seminal theory of argumentation accounts for its widespread application as a general framework for various species of non-monotonic reasoning, and, more generally, reasoning in the presence of conflict. A Dung argumentation framework is instantiated by arguments and a binary conflict based attack relation, defined by some underlying logical theory. The justified arguments under different extensional semantics are then evaluated, and the claims of these arguments define the inferences of the underlying theory. To determine a unique set of justified arguments often requires a preference relation on arguments to determine the success of attacks between arguments. However, preference information is often itself defeasible, conflicting and so subject to argumentation. Hence, in this paper we extend Dung's theory to accommodate arguments that claim preferences between other arguments, thus incorporating meta-level argumentation based reasoning about preferences in the object level. We then define and study application of the full range of Dung's extensional semantics to the extended framework, and study special classes of the extended framework. The extended theory preserves the abstract nature of Dung's approach, thus aiming at a general framework for non-monotonic formalisms that accommodate defeasible reasoning about as well as with preference information. We illustrate by formalising argument based logic programming with defeasible priorities in the extended theory.     

Complexity of semi-stable and stage semantics in argumentation frameworks

In this work, we answer two questions about the complexity of semi-stable semantics for abstract argumentation frameworks: we show -completeness for the problem of deciding whether an argument is skeptically accepted, and respectively, -completeness for the problem of deciding whether an argument is credulously accepted under the semi-stable semantics. Furthermore, we extend these complexity bounds to the according decision problems for stage semantics and discuss two approaches towards tractability.     

Characterizing contextual equivalence in calculi with passivation

We study the problem of characterizing contextual equivalence in higher-order languages with passivation. To overcome the difficulties arising in the proof of congruence of candidate bisimilarities, we introduce a new form of labeled transition semantics together with its associated notion of bisimulation, which we call complementary semantics. Complementary semantics allows to apply the well-known Howe?s method for proving the congruence of bisimilarities in a higher-order setting, even in the presence of an early form of bisimulation. We use complementary semantics to provide a coinductive characterization of contextual equivalence in the HOπP calculus, an extension of the higher-order π-calculus with passivation, obtaining the first result of this kind. We then study the problem of defining a more effective variant of bisimilarity that still characterizes contextual equivalence, along the lines of Sangiorgi?s notion of normal bisimilarity. We provide partial results on this difficult problem: we show that a large class of test processes cannot be used to derive a normal bisimilarity in HOπP, but we show that a form of normal bisimilarity can be defined for HOπP without restriction.     

Advanced methods for equivalence checking of analog circuits with strong nonlinearities

In this contribution two extensions for an analog equivalence checking method are proposed, enabling the checking of strongly nonlinear circuits with floating nodes such as digital library cells. Therefore, a structural recognition and mapping of eigenvalues, representing the dynamics, to circuit elements via circuit variables is presented. Additionally, the introduction of reachability analysis is significantly restricting the investigated state space to the relevant parts, avoiding false negatives. The newly introduced methods are compared to existing ones by application to industrial examples.     

Value-based argumentation for justifying compliance

Compliance is often achieved ??by design?? through a coherent system of controls consisting of information systems and procedures. This system-based control requires a new approach to auditing in which companies must demonstrate to the regulator that they are ??in control??. They must determine the relevance of a regulation for their business, justify which set of control measures they have taken to comply with it, and demonstrate that the control measures are operationally effective. In this paper we show how value-based argumentation theory can be applied to the compliance domain. Corporate values motivate the selection of control measures (actions) which aim to fulfil control objectives, i.e. adopted norms (goals). In particular, we show how to formalize the audit dialogue in which companies justify their compliance decisions to regulators using value-based argumentation. The approach is illustrated by a case study of the safety and security measures adopted in the context of EU customs regulation.     

Abstract argumentation

In this paper we explore the thesis that the role of argumentation in practical reasoning in general and legal reasoning in particular is to justify the use of defeasible rules to derive a conclusion in preference to the use of other defeasible rules to derive a conflicting conclusion. The defeasibility of rules is expressed by means of non-provability claims as additional conditions of the rules.We outline an abstract approach to defeasible reasoning and argumentation which includes many existing formalisms, including default logic, extended logic programming, non-monotonic modal logic and auto-epistemic logic, as special cases. We show, in particular, that the admissibility semantics for all these formalisms has a natural argumentation-theoretic interpretation and proof procedure, which seem to correspond well with informal argumentation.In the admissibility semantics there is only one way for one argument to attack another, namely by undermining one of its non-provability claims. In this paper, we show how other kinds of attack between arguments, specifically how rebuttal and priority attacks, can be reduced to the undermining of non-provability claims.     

Rieffel induction and strong Morita equivalence in the context of Hilbert modules

In this paper we consider m-regular involutive quantales. We develop the notions of Rieffel induction and strong Morita equivalence for this category analogously to the situation for C*-algebras. Financial Support of the NATO Research Fellowship Program and of the Grant Agency of the Czech Republic under the grant No. 201/02/0148 are gratefully acknowledged.     

A labelling framework for probabilistic argumentation

The combination of argumentation and probability paves the way to new accounts of qualitative and quantitative uncertainty, thereby offering new theoretical and applicative opportunities. Due to a variety of interests, probabilistic argumentation is approached in the literature with different frameworks, pertaining to structured and abstract argumentation, and with respect to diverse types of uncertainty, in particular the uncertainty on the credibility of the premises, the uncertainty about which arguments to consider, and the uncertainty on the acceptance status of arguments or statements. Towards a general framework for probabilistic argumentation, we investigate a labelling-oriented framework encompassing a basic setting for rule-based argumentation and its (semi-) abstract account, along with diverse types of uncertainty. Our framework provides a systematic treatment of various kinds of uncertainty and of their relationships and allows us to back or question assertions from the literature.     

Artificial argument assistants for defeasible argumentation

The present paper discusses experimental argument assistance tools. In contrast with automated reasoning tools, the objective is not to replace reasoning, but to guide the user's production of arguments. Two systems are presented, and based on . The focus is on defeasible argumentation with an eye on the law. Argument assistants for defeasible argumentation naturally correspond to a view of the application of law as dialectical theory construction. The experiments provide insights into the design of argument assistants, and show the pros and cons of different ways of representing argumentative data. The development of the argumentation theories underlying the systems has culminated in the logical system that formalizes the interpretation of prima facie justified assumptions. introduces an innovative use of conditionals expressing support and attack. This allows the expression of warrants for support and attack, making it a transparent and flexible system of defeasible argumentation.     

Decision model for complex group argumentation

This paper reports on a decision-making model that can be used for group argumentation when decisions contain twofold complexities: the problem itself and the people (i.e., the decision makers). Related studies have been well documented in literature; however, research on the group mechanism remains limited with regard to two aspects: (1) the complexities of problems and people and (2) the interaction manners of opinions derived from people. In this study, we develop a mechanism called the complex group argumentation (CGA) framework for group decision making. This solution applies the classic methodology of system designs, that is, qualitative-to-quantitative metasynthesis, and contains two core processes, namely, complexity resolution and group argumentation. From a practical perspective, we evaluate the performance of the CGA framework in the context of supplier selection (SS). Results show that our approach can satisfy the requirements of practical SS, while simultaneously coping with the disadvantages of real-world complex GDM. The results of this research can inspire studies on group argumentation in academics and provide proposals for mechanisms on the development of group support systems in the industrial community.     

Abstract argumentation systems

In this paper, we develop a theory of abstract argumentation systems. An abstract argumentation system is a collection of “defeasible proofs”, called arguments, that is partially ordered by a relation expressing the difference in conclusive force. The prefix “abstract” indicates that the theory is concerned neither with a specification of the underlying language, nor with the development of a subtheory that explains the partial order. An unstructured language, without logical connectives such as negation, makes arguments not (pairwise) inconsistent, but (groupwise) incompatible. Incompatibility and difference in conclusive force cause defeat among arguments. The aim of the theory is to find out which arguments eventually emerge undefeated. These arguments are considered to be in force. Several results are established. The main result is that arguments that are in force are precisely those that are in the limit of a so-called complete argumentation sequence.     

Algorithms and complexity results for persuasive argumentation

The study of arguments as abstract entities and their interaction as introduced by Dung (1995) [1] has become one of the most active research branches within Artificial Intelligence and Reasoning. A main issue for abstract argumentation systems is the selection of acceptable sets of arguments. Value-based argumentation, as introduced by Bench-Capon (2003) [8], extends Dung?s framework. It takes into account the relative strength of arguments with respect to some ranking representing an audience: an argument is subjectively accepted if it is accepted with respect to some audience, it is objectively accepted if it is accepted with respect to all audiences.Deciding whether an argument is subjectively or objectively accepted, respectively, are computationally intractable problems. In fact, the problems remain intractable under structural restrictions that render the main computational problems for non-value-based argumentation systems tractable. In this paper we identify nontrivial classes of value-based argumentation systems for which the acceptance problems are polynomial-time tractable. The classes are defined by means of structural restrictions in terms of the underlying graphical structure of the value-based system. Furthermore we show that the acceptance problems are intractable for two classes of value-based systems that where conjectured to be tractable by Dunne (2007) [12].     

Formalizing value-guided argumentation for ethical systems design

The persuasiveness of an argument depends on the values promoted and demoted by the position defended. This idea, inspired by Perelman’s work on argumentation, has become a prominent theme in artificial intelligence research on argumentation since the work by Hafner and Berman on teleological reasoning in the law, and was further developed by Bench-Capon in his value-based argumentation frameworks. One theme in the study of value-guided argumentation is the comparison of values. Formal models involving value comparison typically use either qualitative or quantitative primitives. In this paper, techniques connecting qualitative and quantitative primitives recently developed for evidential argumentation are applied to value-guided argumentation. By developing the theoretical understanding of intelligent systems guided by embedded values, the paper is a step towards ethical systems design, much needed in these days of ever more pervasive AI techniques.     

Probabilistic rule-based argumentation for norm-governed learning agents

This paper proposes an approach to investigate norm-governed learning agents which combines a logic-based formalism with an equation-based counterpart. This dual formalism enables us to describe the reasoning of such agents and their interactions using argumentation, and, at the same time, to capture systemic features using equations. The approach is applied to norm emergence and internalisation in systems of learning agents. The logical formalism is rooted into a probabilistic defeasible logic instantiating Dung??s argumentation framework. Rules of this logic are attached with probabilities to describe the agents?? minds and behaviours as well as uncertain environments. Then, the equation-based model for reinforcement learning, defined over this probability distribution, allows agents to adapt to their environment and self-organise.     

Evidentialist foundationalist argumentation for multi-agent sensor fusion

In this paper, an approach to evidence-based argumentation called Evidentialist Foundationalist Argumentation (EFA) is formally defined in terms of the ASPIC framework. The EFA framework is then used as the basis for general argument patterns applied to the problem domain of Sensor Fusion. These general Sensor Fusion argument patterns serve as templates for concrete arguments constructed by agents in an in situ Sensor Web. These agents use EFA to solve specific instances of the Decentralized Sensor Fusion problem by strategically sharing evidence from their arguments using a Share on Disagreement protocol. Using real-world data, the performance of this multiagent system is compared to the performance of another multiagent system employing a Kalman Filtering approach. The results are statistically analyzed using omega-squared effect sizes produced by ANOVA with p values <  0.05. The EFA based system is found to outperform the Kalman Filtering system in terms of accuracy with mostly high and medium effect sizes. The Kalman Filtering system is found to outperform the EFA based system in terms of communication costs with mostly low effect sizes.