Approximating stability for applied argument-based inquiry

Odekerken, Daphne; Bex, Floris; Borg, AnneMarie; Testerink, Bas

doi:10.1016/j.iswa.2022.200110

Cited by 12 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In particular, the notions of a language, axioms and defeasible rules are taken from ASPIC + . See [19] for the formal details. 4 In this paper we only provide the preliminaries that are necessary for the explanations.…”

Section: Argumentation Preliminariesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One such application concerns complaints by citizens about online trade fraud (e.g., a product bought through a web-shop or on eBay turns out to be fake). The system queries the citizen for various observations, and then determines whether the complaint is a case of fraud [3,19]. Another related example is a classifier for checking fraudulent web-shops, which gathers information about online shops and thus tries to determine whether they are real (bone fide) or fake (mala fide) shops [18].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The corresponding demo of[19], demonstrating the argumentation-based part of the application, is available at https://nationaal-politielab.sites.uu.nl/estimatingstability-for-efficient-argument-based-inquiry/.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Explaining Arguments at the Dutch National Police

Borg

Bex

2021

AI Approaches to the Complexity of Legal Systems XI-XII

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As AI systems are increasingly applied in real-life situations, it is essential that such systems can give explanations that provide insight into the underlying decision models and techniques. Thus, users can understand, trust and validate the system, and experts can verify that the system works as intended. At the Dutch National Police several applications based on computational argumentation are in use, with police analysts and Dutch citizens as possible users. In this paper we show how a basic framework of explanations aimed at explaining argumentationbased conclusions can be applied to these applications at the police.

show abstract

Section: Argumentation Preliminariesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Explaining Arguments at the Dutch National Police

Borg

Bex

2021

AI Approaches to the Complexity of Legal Systems XI-XII

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Since we study enforcement and strong equivalence in terms of the conclusionbased outcome of ABA frameworks and LPs, it is crucial in our setting to consider not only the vulnerabilities but also the claim on the abstract level. (Rotstein, Moguillansky, García, & Simari, 2010;Snaith & Reed, 2017;Ulbricht & Baumann, 2019;Baumann, 2012a;Odekerken, Bex, Borg, & Testerink, 2022). In the context of AFs, both enforcement and strong equivalence are well-studied (Oikarinen & Woltran, 2011;Wallner et al, 2017;Baumann, 2012a).…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

On Dynamics in Structured Argumentation Formalisms

Rapberger

Ulbricht

2023

jair

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper is a contribution to the research on dynamics in assumption-based argumentation (ABA). We investigate situations where a given knowledge base undergoes certain changes. We show that two frequently investigated problems, namely enforcement of a given target atom and deciding strong equivalence of two given ABA frameworks, are intractable in general. Notably, these problems are both tractable for abstract argumentation frameworks (AFs) which admit a close correspondence to ABA by constructing semanticspreserving instances. Inspired by this observation, we search for tractable fragments for ABA frameworks by means of the instantiated AFs. We argue that the usual instantiation procedure is not suitable for the investigation of dynamic scenarios since too much information is lost when constructing the abstract framework. We thus consider an extension of AFs, called cvAFs, equipping arguments with conclusions and vulnerabilities in order to better anticipate their role after the underlying knowledge base is extended. We investigate enforcement and strong equivalence for cvAFs and present syntactic conditions to decide them. We show that the correspondence between cvAFs and ABA frameworks is close enough to capture dynamics in ABA. This yields the desired tractable fragment. We furthermore discuss consequences for the corresponding problems for logic programs.

show abstract

“…Compared to this work, we are interested in how the acceptability status of an argument can decrease. A recent structured approach in ASPIC + is [12] (abstracted to AF s in [11]), who study whether argument and conclusion statuses can change under expansions of the knowledge base, to find out whether searching for further information makes sense. It would be interesting to investigate how all this work on argument dynamics can be combined with studies of dialectical argument strength.…”

Section: Related Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Formalising an Aspect of Argument Strength: Degrees of Attackability

Prakken

2022

Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper formally studies a notion of dialectical argument strength in terms of the number of ways in which an argument can be successfully attacked in expansions of an abstract argumentation framework. The proposed model is abstract but its design is motivated by the wish to avoid overly limiting assumptions that may not hold in particular dialogue contexts or in particular structured accounts of argumentation. It is shown that most principles for gradual argument acceptability proposed in the literature fail to hold for the proposed notion of dialectical strength, which clarifies their rational foundations and highlights the importance of distinguishing between logical, dialectical and rhetorical argument strength.

show abstract

Approximating stability for applied argument-based inquiry

Cited by 12 publications

References 20 publications

Explaining Arguments at the Dutch National Police

Explaining Arguments at the Dutch National Police

On Dynamics in Structured Argumentation Formalisms

Formalising an Aspect of Argument Strength: Degrees of Attackability

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About