An argumentation framework for contested cases of statutory interpretation

This paper proposes an argumentation-based procedure for legal interpretation, by reinterpreting the traditional canons of textual interpretation in terms of argumentation schemes, which are then classified, formalized, and represented through argument visualization and evaluation tools. The problem of statutory interpretation is framed as one of weighing contested interpretations as pro and con arguments. The paper builds an interpretation procedure by formulating a set of argumentation schemes that can be used to comparatively evaluate the types of arguments used in cases of contested statutory interpretation in law. A simplified version of the Carneades Argumentation System is applied in a case analysis showing how the procedure works. A logical model for statutory interpretation is finally presented, covering pro-tanto and all-things-considered interpretive conclusions.     

Argumentation-Based Agent Interaction in an Ambient-Intelligence Context

A multiagent system uses argumentation-based interaction in an ambient-intelligence context to provide services for people with different combinations of impairments. This paper focuses on ambient intelligence system of agents for knowledge-based and integrated services for mobility-impaired users integrated projectpsilas (ASK-ITIP) furthered the challenge by aiming to support users having different types and combinations of impairments. ASK-ITIP use of argumentation to model a distributed decision-making process for a coalition of assistant agents, each an expert on a different impairment. When a user suffers from a combination of impairments, these agents engage in an argumentation-based dialogue to agree on the user's needs. We found that applying argumentation was natural in this context because, generally speaking, we can abstractly define argumentation as the principled interaction of different, potentially conflicting arguments to obtain a consistent conclusion. Moreover, argumentation-based interaction is combined with a standardized interaction type based on the foundation for intelligent physical agents interaction protocol.     

Inferring from Inconsistency in Preference-Based Argumentation Frameworks

Argumentation is a promising approach to handle inconsistent knowledge bases, based on the justification of plausible conclusions by arguments. Because of inconsistency, however, arguments may be defeated by counterarguments (or defeaters). The problem is thus to select the most acceptable arguments. In this paper we investigate preference-based acceptability. The basic idea is to accept undefeated arguments and also arguments that are preferred to their defeaters. We say that these arguments defend themselves against their defeaters. We define argumentation frameworks based on that preference-based acceptability. Finally, we study associated inference relations for reasoning with inconsistent knowledge bases.     

基于可信度的辩论模型及争议评价算法

辩论是智能主体间为了消除分歧的一种基于言语的交互行为.由于知识的局限性,争议以及争议内部的陈述通常存在不确定性,因此在对辩论进行建模时需要考虑不确定信息处理问题.提出一种基于可信度的辩论模型（CFA）,该模型将争议表示为由若干前提和一个结论组成的可废止规则,并用对话树描述辩论推演过程.为了表示不确定性推理,引入可信度模型,将争议前提的不确定性和争议之间的攻击强度统一用可信度因子表示.在此基础上,提出计算陈述可信度的争议评价算法,并通过设定可信度阈值确定陈述的可接受性,得出最终辩论结果.最后,用一个实例说明该方法的有效性.该模型可以有效处理不确定信息条件下辩论推理过程,其辩论算法建立在数值计算基础之上,所得出的可接受陈述集在给定可信度阈值条件下是唯一的,可以克服Dung 的抽象辩论框架中扩充语义的不足.     

Argument-based agreements in agent societies

In this paper, we present an abstract argumentation framework for the support of agreement processes in agent societies. It takes into account arguments, attacks among them, and the social context of the agents that put forward arguments. Then, we define the semantics of the framework, providing a mechanism to evaluate arguments in view of other arguments posed in the argumentation process. We also provide a translation of the framework into a neural network that computes the set of acceptable arguments and can be tuned to give more or less importance to argument attacks. Finally, the framework is illustrated with an example in a real domain of a water-rights transfer market.     

Using arguments for making and explaining decisions

Arguments play two different roles in day life decisions, as well as in the discussion of more crucial issues. Namely, they help to select one or several alternatives, or to explain and justify an already adopted choice.This paper proposes the first general and abstract argument-based framework for decision making. This framework follows two main steps. At the first step, arguments for beliefs and arguments for options are built and evaluated using classical acceptability semantics. At the second step, pairs of options are compared using decision principles. Decision principles are based on the accepted arguments supporting the options. Three classes of decision principles are distinguished: unipolar, bipolar or non-polar principles depending on whether i) only arguments pros or only arguments cons, or ii) both types, or iii) an aggregation of them into a meta-argument are used. The abstract model is then instantiated by expressing formally the mental states (beliefs and preferences) of a decision maker. In the proposed framework, information is given in the form of a stratified set of beliefs. The bipolar nature of preferences is emphasized by making an explicit distinction between prioritized goals to be pursued, and prioritized rejections that are stumbling blocks to be avoided. A typology that identifies four types of argument is proposed. Indeed, each decision is supported by arguments emphasizing its positive consequences in terms of goals certainly satisfied and rejections certainly avoided. A decision can also be attacked by arguments emphasizing its negative consequences in terms of certainly missed goals, or rejections certainly led to by that decision. Finally, this paper articulates the optimistic and pessimistic decision criteria defined in qualitative decision making under uncertainty, in terms of an argumentation process. Similarly, different decision principles identified in multiple criteria decision making are restated in our argumentation-based framework.     

Quantifying counts and costs via classification

Many business applications track changes over time, for example, measuring the monthly prevalence of influenza incidents. In situations where a classifier is needed to identify the relevant incidents, imperfect classification accuracy can cause substantial bias in estimating class prevalence. The paper defines two research challenges for machine learning. The ‘quantification’ task is to accurately estimate the number of positive cases (or class distribution) in a test set, using a training set that may have a substantially different distribution. The ‘cost quantification’ variant estimates the total cost associated with the positive class, where each case is tagged with a cost attribute, such as the expense to resolve the case. Quantification has a very different utility model from traditional classification research. For both forms of quantification, the paper describes a variety of methods and evaluates them with a suitable methodology, revealing which methods give reliable estimates when training data is scarce, the testing class distribution differs widely from training, and the positive class is rare, e.g., 1% positives. These strengths can make quantification practical for business use, even where classification accuracy is poor.     

基于冗余度的KNN训练样本裁剪新算法

作为数据挖掘领域十大算法之一,K-近邻算法（K-Nearest-Neighbor,KNN）因具有非参数、无需训练时间、简单有效等特点而得到广泛应用。然而,KNN算法在面对高维的大训练样本集时,分类时间复杂度高的问题成为其应用的瓶颈。另外,因训练样本的类分布不均匀而导致的类不平衡问题也会影响其分类性能。针对这两个问题,提出了一种基于冗余度的KNN分类器训练样本裁剪新算法（简记为RBKNN）。RBKNN通过引入训练样本集预处理过程,对每个训练样本进行冗余度计算,并随机裁剪掉部分高冗余度的训练样本,从而达到减小训练样本规模、均衡样本分布的目的。实验结果表明,RBKNN可在保持或改善分类精度的前提下显著提升KNN的分类效率。     

On the merging of Dung's argumentation systems

In this paper, the problem of deriving sensible information from a collection of argumentation systems coming from different agents is addressed. The underlying argumentation theory is Dung's one: each argumentation system gives both a set of arguments and the way they interact (i.e., attack or non-attack) according to the corresponding agent. The inadequacy of the simple, yet appealing, method which consists in voting on the agents' selected extensions calls for a new approach. To this purpose, a general framework for merging argumentation systems from Dung's theory of argumentation is presented. The objective is achieved through a three-step process: first, each argumentation system is expanded into a partial system over the set of all arguments considered by the group of agents (reflecting that some agents may easily ignore arguments pointed out by other agents, as well as how such arguments interact with her own ones); then, merging is used on the expanded systems as a way to solve the possible conflicts between them, and a set of argumentation systems which are as close as possible to the whole profile is generated; finally, voting is used on the selected extensions of the resulting systems so as to characterize the acceptable arguments at the group level.     

A transformation algorithm for incompatible information systems based on variable precision values

The variable precision rough set (VPRS) model extends the basic rough set (RS) theory with finite uni- verses and finite evaluative measures. VPRS is concerned with the equivalence and the contained relationship between two sets. In incompatible information systems, the inclusion degree and β upper (lower) approximation of the inconsistent equivalence class to the decision equivalence classes may be affected by the variable precision. The analysis of an example of incompatible decision table shows that there is a critical point in β available-values region. In the new β range limited at the critical point, the incompatible decision table can be converted to the coordination decision table reliably. The method and its algorithm implement are introduced for the critical value search. The examples of the inconsistent equivalence class transformation are exhibited. The results illustrate that this algorithm is rational and precise.     

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.     

Using background knowledge in case-based legal reasoning: A computational model and an intelligent learning environment

Researchers in the field of AI and Law have developed a number of computational models of the arguments that skilled attorneys make based on past cases. However, these models have not accounted for the ways that attorneys use middle-level normative background knowledge (1) to organize multi-case arguments, (2) to reason about the significance of differences between cases, and (3) to assess the relevance of precedent cases to a given problem situation. We present a novel model, that accounts for these argumentation phenomena. An evaluation study showed that arguments about the significance of distinctions based on this model help predict the outcome of cases in the area of trade secrets law, confirming the quality of these arguments. The model forms the basis of an intelligent learning environment called CATO, which was designed to help beginning law students acquire basic argumentation skills. CATO uses the model for a number of purposes, including the dynamic generation of argumentation examples. In a second evaluation study, carried out in the context of an actual legal writing course, we compared instruction with CATO against the best traditional legal writing instruction. The results indicate that CATO's example-based instructional approach is effective in teaching basic argumentation skills. However, a more “integrated” approach appears to be needed if students are to achieve better transfer of these skills to more complex contexts. CATO's argumentation model and instructional environment are a contribution to the research fields of AI and Law, Case-Based Reasoning, and AI and Education.     

Argumentation frameworks as constraint satisfaction problems

Argumentation is a promising approach for defeasible reasoning. It consists of justifying each plausible conclusion by arguments. Since the available information may be inconsistent, a conclusion and its negation may both be justified. The arguments are thus said to be conflicting. The main issue is how to evaluate the arguments. Several semantics were proposed for that purpose. The most important ones are: stable, preferred, complete, grounded and admissible. A semantics is a set of criteria that should be satisfied by a set of arguments, called extension, in order to be acceptable. Different decision problems related to these semantics were defined (like whether an argumentation framework has a stable extension). It was also shown that most of these problems are intractable. Consequently, developing algorithms for these problems is not trivial and thus the implementation of argumentation systems not obvious. Recently, some solutions to this problem were found. The idea is to use a reduction method where a given problem is translated in another one like SAT or ASP. This paper follows this line of research. It studies how to encode the problem of computing the extensions of an argumentation framework (under each of the previous semantics) as a constraint satisfaction problem (CSP). Such encoding is of great importance since it makes it possible to use the very efficient solvers (developed by the CSP community) for computing the extensions. Our encodings take advantage of existing reductions to SAT problems in the case of Dung’s abstract framework. Among the various ways of translating a SAT problem into a CSP one, we propose the most appropriate one in the argumentation context. We also provide encodings in case two other families of argumentation frameworks: the constrained version of Dung’s abstract framework and preference-based argumentation framework.     

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).]     

Argument based machine learning

We present a novel approach to machine learning, called ABML (argumentation based ML). This approach combines machine learning from examples with concepts from the field of argumentation. The idea is to provide expert's arguments, or reasons, for some of the learning examples. We require that the theory induced from the examples explains the examples in terms of the given reasons. Thus arguments constrain the combinatorial search among possible hypotheses, and also direct the search towards hypotheses that are more comprehensible in the light of expert's background knowledge. In this paper we realize the idea of ABML as rule learning. We implement ABCN2, an argument-based extension of the CN2 rule learning algorithm, conduct experiments and analyze its performance in comparison with the original CN2 algorithm.     

Learning to classify by ongoing feature selection

Existing classification algorithms use a set of training examples to select classification features, which are then used for all future applications of the classifier. A major problem with this approach is the selection of a training set: a small set will result in reduced performance, and a large set will require extensive training. In addition, class appearance may change over time requiring an adaptive classification system. In this paper, we propose a solution to these basic problems by developing an on-line feature selection method, which continuously modifies and improves the features used for classification based on the examples provided so far. The method is used for learning a new class, and to continuously improve classification performance as new data becomes available. In ongoing learning, examples are continuously presented to the system, and new features arise from these examples. The method continuously measures the value of the selected features using mutual information, and uses these values to efficiently update the set of selected features when new training information becomes available. The problem is challenging because at each stage the training process uses a small subset of the training data. Surprisingly, with sufficient training data the on-line process reaches the same performance as a scheme that has a complete access to the entire training data.     

基于论辩的Agent非单调推理

现有的Agent信念修正、慎思、手段-目的推理等理论和方法大多基于经典一阶逻辑,对不完全的、不一致的知识,缺乏有效的处理机制。基于论辩的Agent非单调推理(包括认识推理和实践推理)理论和方法有望弥补这个不足。不过,作为一个新的研究方向,其基本概念、理论、方法及存在的关键性问题尚有待于澄清和梳理。文中首先介绍论辩的基本概念。在此基础上,分析基于论辩的Agent非单调推理的最新研究进展。最后,讨论存在的关键性问题并指出可能的研究方向。     

Argumentation-based negotiation planning for autonomous agents

When we negotiate, the arguments uttered to persuade the opponent are not the result of an isolated analysis, but of an integral view of the problem that we want to agree about. Before the negotiation starts, we have in mind what arguments we can utter, what opponent we can persuade, which negotiation can finish successfully and which cannot. Thus, we plan the negotiation, and in particular, the argumentation. This fact allows us to take decisions in advance and to start the negotiation more confidently. With this in mind, we claim that this planning can be exploited by an autonomous agent. Agents plan the actions that they should execute to achieve their goals. In these plans, some actions are under the agent's control, while some others are not. The latter must be negotiated with other agents. Negotiation is usually carried out during the plan execution. In our opinion, however, negotiation can be considered during the planning stage, as in real life. In this paper, we present a novel approach to integrate argumentation-based negotiation planning into the general planning process of an autonomous agent. This integration allows the agent to take key decisions in advance. We evaluated this proposal in a multiagent scenario by comparing the performance of agents that plan the argumentation and agents that do not. These evaluations demonstrated that performance improves when the argumentation is planned, specially, when the negotiation alternatives increase.     

LODE: A distance-based classifier built on ensembles of positive and negative observations

Current work on assembling a set of local patterns such as rules and class association rules into a global model for the prediction of a target usually focuses on the identification of the minimal set of patterns that cover the training data. In this paper we present a different point of view: the model of a class has been built with the purpose to emphasize the typical features of the examples of the class. Typical features are modeled by frequent itemsets extracted from the examples and constitute a new representation space of the examples of the class. Prediction of the target class of test examples occurs by computation of the distance between the vector representing the example in the space of the itemsets of each class and the vectors representing the classes.It is interesting to observe that in the distance computation the critical contribution to the discrimination between classes is given not only by the itemsets of the class model that match the example but also by itemsets that do not match the example. These absent features constitute some pieces of information on the examples that can be considered for the prediction and should not be disregarded. Second, absent features are more abundant in the wrong classes than in the correct ones and their number increases the distance between the example vector and the negative class vectors. Furthermore, since absent features are frequent features in their respective classes, they make the prediction more robust against over-fitting and noise. The usage of features absent in the test example is a novel issue in classification: existing learners usually tend to select the best local pattern that matches the example and do not consider the abundance of other patterns that do not match it. We demonstrate the validity of our observations and the effectiveness of LODE, our learner, by means of extensive empirical experiments in which we compare the prediction accuracy of LODE with a consistent set of classifiers of the state of the art. In this paper we also report the methodology that we adopted in order to determine automatically the setting of the learner and of its parameters.     

Abductive Explanation-Based Learning: A Solution to the Multiple Inconsistent Explanation Problem

One problem which frequently surfaces when applying explanation-based learning (EBL) to imperfect theories is themultiple inconsistent explanation problem. The multiple inconsistent explanation problem occurs when a domain theory produces multiple explanations for a training instance, only some of which are correct. Domain theories which suffer from the multiple inconsistent explanation problem can occur in many different contexts, such as when some information is missing and must be assumed: since such assumptions can be incorrect, incorrect explanations can be constructed. This paper proposes an extension of explanation-based learning, calledabductive explanation-based learning (A-EBL) which solves the multiple inconsistent explanation problem by using set covering techniques and negative examples to choose among the possible explanations of a training example. It is shown by formal analysis that A-EBL has convergence properties that are only logarithmically worse than EBL/TS, a formalization of a certain type of knowledge-level EBL; A-EBL is also proven to be computationally efficient, assuming that the domain theory is tractable. Finally, experimental results are reported on an application of A-EBL to learning correct rules for opening bids in the game of contract bridge given examples and an imperfect domain theory.