Preprocessing Argumentation Frameworks via Replacement Patterns

Dvořák, Wolfgang; Järvisalo, Matti; Linsbichler, Thomas; Niskanen, Andreas; Woltran, Stefan

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-19570-0_8

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, in contrast to their classical counterparts, they also allow for certain syntactic manipulations (deletion of self-attacking arguments) without affecting the meaning of the frameworks. This unique feature can be used as preprocessing step for any system engaged with the solution of central reasoning problems for abstract argumentation (Dvorák et al 2019). Beside this specific use case we expect that our new semantics are widely applicable: it will be interesting to investigate whether approaches which directly or indirectly rest upon Dung semantics -like the treatment of preferences in (Amgoud and Cayrol 1998), the assumption-based approach to argumentation (Toni 2014), or the ASPIC + framework (Modgil and Prakken 2014), to name a few prominent examples -can benefit from our concepts.…”

Section: Summary and Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Revisiting the Foundations of Abstract Argumentation – Semantics Based on Weak Admissibility and Weak Defense

Baumann

Brewka

Ulbricht

2020

AAAI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In his seminal 1995 paper, Dung paved the way for abstract argumentation, a by now major research area in knowledge representation. He pointed out that there is a problematic issue with self-defeating arguments underlying all traditional semantics. A self-defeat occurs if an argument attacks itself either directly or indirectly via an odd attack loop, unless the loop is broken up by some argument attacking the loop from outside. Motivated by the fact that such arguments represent self-contradictory or paradoxical arguments, he asked for reasonable semantics which overcome the problem that such arguments may indeed invalidate any argument they attack. This paper tackles this problem from scratch. More precisely, instead of continuing to use previous concepts defined by Dung we provide new foundations for abstract argumentation, so-called weak admissibility and weak defense. After showing that these key concepts are compatible as in the classical case we introduce new versions of the classical Dung-style semantics including complete, preferred and grounded semantics. We provide a rigorous study of these new concepts including interrelationships as well as the relations to their Dung-style counterparts. The newly introduced semantics overcome the issue with self-defeating arguments, and they are semantically insensitive to syntactic deletions of self-attacking arguments, a special case of self-defeat.

show abstract

Section: Summary and Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Revisiting the Foundations of Abstract Argumentation – Semantics Based on Weak Admissibility and Weak Defense

Baumann

Brewka

Ulbricht

2020

AAAI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Our work is connected to the notion of realizability (Dunne et al 2015) as discussed before. Through an observation like in Proposition 8, our work can be related to works studying replacements of parts of an AF (Baroni et al 2014;Dvořák et al 2019) which investigate, e.g., simplifications (modifications) that preserve equivalences relativized to certain arguments.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Existential Abstraction on Argumentation Frameworks via Clustering

Saribatur

Wallner

2021

Proceedings of the Eighteenth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence (AI) builds on formal approaches to reasoning argumentatively. Common to many such approaches is to use argumentation frameworks (AFs) as reasoning engines, with AFs being composed of arguments and attacks between arguments, which are instantiated from knowledge bases in a principle-based manner. While representing what can be argued for in an AF provides a conceptually clean way, this process can face challenges arising from generating a large number of arguments, which can act as a barrier to explainability. Inspired by successful approaches to model checking where the state explosion is mitigated by applying existential abstraction, we study an adaption of existential abstraction in form of clustering arguments in an AF to address an associated "argument explosion". In this paper, we provide a foundational investigation of this form of existential abstraction by defining semantics of the resulting clustered AFs, which balance two inherent aspects of existential abstractions: abstracting from concrete AFs and not permitting too much spuriousness (i.e., conclusions that hold on the abstraction but not on the original AF). Moreover, we show properties of clustered AFs, including complexity results, discuss use of clusterings for explaining results of reasoning tasks, and employ the recently introduced methodology of abstraction in answer set programming (ASP) for obtaining and reasoning over clustered AFs.

show abstract