Value Based Argumentation Frameworks

T. Bench-Capon

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.cs/0207059

2002-07-15

Abstract:This paper introduces the notion of value-based argumentation frameworks, an extension of the standard argumentation frameworks proposed by Dung, which are able toshow how rational decision is possible in cases where arguments derive their force from the social values their acceptance would promote.

Artificial Intelligence

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Semi-Abstract Value-Based Argumentation Framework

Jovan Jeromela

2023-09-25

Abstract:In his seminal paper, Phan Minh Dung (1995) proposed abstract argumentation framework, which models argumentation using directed graphs where structureless arguments are the nodes and attacks among the arguments are the edges. In the following years, many extensions of this framework were introduced. These extensions typically add a certain form of structure to the arguments. This thesis showcases two such extensions -- value-based argumentation framework by Trevor Bench-Capon (2002) and semi-abstract argumentation framework by Esther Anna Corsi and Christian Fermüller (2017). The former introduces a mapping function that links individual arguments to a set of ordered values, enabling a distinction between objectively and subjectively acceptable arguments. The latter links claims of individual arguments to propositional formulae and then applies newly-introduced attack principles in order to make implicit attacks explicit and to enable a definition of a consequence relation that relies on neither the truth values nor the interpretations in the usual sense. The contribution of this thesis is two-fold. Firstly, the new semi-abstract value-based argumentation framework is introduced. This framework maps propositional formulae associated with individual arguments to a set of ordered values. Secondly, a complex moral dilemma is formulated using the original and the value-based argumentation frameworks showcasing the expressivity of these formalisms.

Artificial Intelligence,Logic in Computer Science
Social Welfare Semantics for Value-Based Argumentation Framework.

Fuan Pu,Jian Luo,Yulai Zhang,Guiming Luo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39787-5_7

2013-01-01

Abstract:Logically intuitive properties of argument acceptance criteria have been paid great attention in the argumentation frameworks, however, which do not take into account the agents. Recently research has begun on evaluating argument acceptance criteria considering preferences of audiences, a kind of representative agents. In this paper we take a step towards applying social choice theory into value-based argumentation framework (VAF), and propose social welfare semantics, an extension of Dung's semantics incorporating social preference. Then the social welfare semantics and its relationship with the semantics of VAF are analyzed, and some non-trivial properties are proved based on Pareto efficiency. © 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.
Characterizing Argumentation Frameworks with an Extension

Kang Xu,Beishui Liao

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1674-3202.2021.06.003

2021-01-01

Abstract:According to a given criterium, from the structure of an argumentation framework, a set of extensions can be decided. Conversely, an extension or a set of extensions can identify a set of argumentation frameworks. The direction from argumentation frameworks to their semantics has been discussed a lot, but little attention has been paid to the opposite direction. In this paper, we focus on characterizing argumentation frameworks with a given set of arguments as an extension, and show its applications on the update of argumentation frameworks and monotony.
Representation Equivalences among Argumentation Frameworks.

Beishui Liao,Leendert van der Torre

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-61499-906-5-21

2018-01-01

Abstract:In Dung's abstract argumentation theory, an extension can be represented by subsets of it in the sense that from each of these subsets, the extension can be obtained again by iteratively applying the characteristic function. Such so-called regular representations can be used to differentiate argumentation frameworks having the same extensions. In this paper we provide a full characterization of relations between seven different types of representation equivalence.
Value-based Practical Reasoning: Modal Logic + Argumentation

Jieting Luo,Beishui Liao,Dov Gabbay

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3233/faia220157

2022-01-01

Comma

Abstract:Autonomous agents are supposed to be able to finish tasks or achieve goals that are assigned by their users through performing a sequence of actions. Since there might exist multiple plans that an agent can follow and each plan might promote or demote different values along each action, the agent should be able to resolve the conflicts between them and evaluate which plan he should follow. In this paper, we develop a logic-based framework that combines modal logic and argumentation for value-based practical reasoning with plans. Modal logic is used as a technique to represent and verify whether a plan with its local properties of value promotion or demotion can be followed to achieve an agent's goal. We then propose an argumentation-based approach that allows an agent to reason about his plans in the form of supporting or objecting to a plan using the verification results.
Updating Argumentation Frameworks for Enforcing Extensions.

Kang Xu,Beishui Liao,Huaxin Huang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-7791-4_4

2018-01-01

Abstract:There are mainly two research directions for the dynamic of argumentation: revision and enforcement. The former studies how the semantics of an argumentation framework changes when the framework is updated, while the later studies how to enforce a given status of arguments by updating the argumentation framework. In the second direction, little attention has been paid to the problem of providing general rules for updating an argumentation framework aiming to enforce an extension of arguments. In this paper, we address this problem by a notion of characterizing the updated argumentation framework with respect to a given set of arguments.
The argument framework is a flexible approach to evidence in healthcare

Jonathan Fuller,Benjamin Chin-Yee,Ross E. G. Upshur

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-024-02930-x

IF: 82.9

2024-04-27

Nature Medicine

Abstract:An argument framework, grounded in the sciences of reasoning, provides an alternative to medicine's measurement framework for evaluating and synthesizing evidence in healthcare.

biochemistry & molecular biology,cell biology,medicine, research & experimental
Present and Future of Formal Argumentation (dagstuhl Perspectives Workshop 15362).

Dov M. Gabbay,Massimiliano Giacomin,Beishui Liao,Leendert W. N. van der Torre

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4230/dagman.7.1.69

2018-01-01

Abstract:Formal Argumentation is emerging as a key reasoning paradigm building bridges among knowledge representation and reasoning in artificial intelligence, informal argumentation in philosophy and linguistics, legal and ethical argumentation, mathematical and logical reasoning, and graph-theoretic reasoning. It aims to capture diverse kinds of reasoning and dialogue activities in the presence of uncertainty and conflicting information in a formal and intuitive way, with potential applications ranging from argumentation mining, via LegalTech and machine ethics, to therapy in clinical psychology. The turning point for the modern stage of formal argumentation theory, much similar to the introduction of possible worlds semantics for the theory of modality, is the framework and language of Dung's abstract argumentation theory introduced in 1995. This means that nothing could remain the same as before 1995 - it should be a focal point of reference for any study of argumentation, even if it is critical about it. Now, in modal logic, the introduction of the possible worlds semantics has led to a complete paradigm shift, both in tools and new subjects of studies. This is still not fully true for what is going on in argumentation theory. The Dagstuhl workshop led to the first volume of a handbook series in formal argumentation, reflecting the new stage of the development of argumentation theory.
Sub-Frameworks and Local Semantics

Beishui Liao

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-410406-8.00004-x

2014-01-01

Abstract:In many situations, evaluating the status of arguments globally is inefficient. In this chapter, we introduce a basic theory for evaluating the status of arguments locally: given a subset of arguments, their status is computed in a sub-framework which may (or may not) be conditioned by other sub-frameworks. For an unconditioned sub-framework, the definition of its semantics is the same as the one for Dung’s argumentation framework. On the contrary, for a conditioned sub-framework in which the status of some arguments may be affected by that of some external arguments, the definition of its semantics is different.
Evidence-Based Argumentation and Its Incremental Semantics

Chen Chen,Beishui Liao,Bin Wei

2023-01-01

Abstract:Arguments cannot be evaluated in isolation; their reliability hinges on the evidence that supports them. However, in some extensions to Dung’s seminal work, the crucial role that evidence plays has not been adequately captured. To address this issue, this paper proposes an extension of Dung’s abstract argumentation framework that includes a set of evidence and the concept of evidential support. Under this framework, arguments derive support from evidence and can then defeat their opponents. Moreover, the incremental semantics of the framework explicate the fallibility and cumulative nature of evidence. It largely increases the expressive power of formal argumentation.
The matrices of argumentation frameworks

Xu Yuming

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1110.1416

2011-10-07

Information Theory

Abstract:We introduce matrix and its block to the Dung's theory of argumentation frameworks. It is showed that each argumentation framework has a matrix representation, and the common extension-based semantics of argumentation framework can be characterized by blocks of matrix and their relations. In contrast with traditional method of directed graph, the matrix way has the advantage of computability. Therefore, it has an extensive perspective to bring the theory of matrix into the research of argumentation frameworks and related areas.
Dynamics of Argumentation Systems: A Basic Theory

Beishui Liao,Li Jin,Robert C. Koons

DOI: https://doi.org/10.29007/njsm

2018-01-01

Abstract:The changing of arguments and their attack relation is an intrinsic property of a variety of argumentation systems. So, it is very important to efficiently figure out how the status of arguments in a system evolves when the system is updated. However, unlike other areas of argumentation that have been deeply explored, such as argumentation semantics, proof theories, and algorithms, etc., dynamics of argumentation systems has been comparatively neglected. In this paper, we introduce a general theory (called a division-based method) to cope with this problem based on a new concept: the division of an argumentation framework. When an argumentation framework is updated, it is divided into three parts: an unaffected, an affected, and a conditioning part. The status of arguments in the unaffected sub-framework remains unchanged, while the status of the affected arguments is computed in a special argumentation framework (called a conditioned argumentation framework, or briefly CAF) that is composed of an affected part and a conditioning part. We have proved that under a certain semantics that satisfies the directionality criterion (complete, preferred, ideal, or grounded semantics), the extensions of the updated framework are equal to the result of a combination of the extensions of an unaffected sub-framework and sets of the extensions of a set of assigned CAFs. Due to the efficiency of the division-based method, it is expected to be very useful in various kinds of argumentation systems where arguments and attacks are dynamics.
Abstractly Interpreting Argumentation Frameworks for Sharpening Extensions

Ryuta Arisaka,Jeremie Dauphin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1802.01526

2018-02-06

Abstract:Cycles of attacking arguments pose non-trivial issues in Dung style argumentation theory, apparent behavioural difference between odd and even length cycles being a notable one. While a few methods were proposed for treating them, to - in particular - enable selection of acceptable arguments in an odd-length cycle when Dung semantics could select none, so far the issues have been observed from a purely argument-graph-theoretic perspective. Per contra, we consider argument graphs together with a certain lattice like semantic structure over arguments e.g. ontology. As we show, the semantic-argumentgraphic hybrid theory allows us to apply abstract interpretation, a widely known methodology in static program analysis, to formal argumentation. With this, even where no arguments in a cycle could be selected sensibly, we could say more about arguments acceptability of an argument framework that contains it. In a certain sense, we can verify Dung extensions with respect to a semantic structure in this hybrid theory, to consolidate our confidence in their suitability. By defining the theory, and by making comparisons to existing approaches, we ultimately discover that whether Dung semantics, or an alternative semantics such as cf2, is adequate or problematic depends not just on an argument graph but also on the semantic relation among the arguments in the graph.

Artificial Intelligence
A general semi-structured formalism for computational argumentation: Definition, properties, and examples of application.

Pietro Baroni,Massimiliano Giacomin,Beishui Liao

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2018.01.003

IF: 14.4

2018-01-01

Artificial Intelligence

Abstract:In the field of computational argumentation several formalisms featuring different levels of abstraction and focusing on different aspects of the argumentation process have been developed. Their combined use, necessary to achieve a comprehensive formal coverage of the argumentation phenomenon, gives rise to a nontrivial interplay between different abstraction levels, so that counterintuitive or undesirable outcomes may result from the combination of formalisms which appear to be well-behaved when considered in isolation. To address this problem we introduce a semi-structured formalism for argumentation, called LAF-ensembles, capturing a set of essential features of structured arguments and define a class of set based argumentation frameworks appropriate to support a semantic assessment of arguments for LAF-ensembles. It is shown that, under suitable assumptions, the combination of a LAF-ensemble and of an appropriate argumentation framework is guaranteed to produce justification outcomes satisfying a set of essential requirements. The generality and usefulness of the proposed approach are demonstrated by illustrating its ability to capture as instances and enhance two structured argumentation formalisms from the literature, namely Vreeswijk's abstract argument systems and Modgil and Prakken's ASPIC+. In particular, a revised version of the latter formalism, properly dealing with generic contrariness and solving significant technical limitations of ASPIC+, is proposed.
Argumentation, Dialogue Theory, and Probability Modeling: Alternative Frameworks for Argumentation Research in Education

E. Michael Nussbaum

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2011.558816

2011-04-08

Educational Psychologist

Abstract:Toulmin's model of argumentation, developed in 1958, has guided much argumentation research in education. However, argumentation theory in philosophy and cognitive science has advanced considerably since 1958. There are currently several alternative frameworks of argumentation that can be useful for both research and practice in education. These frameworks include Walton's dialogue theory and Bayesian models of everyday arguments. This article reviews and evaluates these frameworks and shows how each can be applied instructionally (e.g., through the teaching of critical questions or probability modeling) and, from a research standpoint, in evaluating the content and quality of informal arguments. It is concluded that attention to these and other contemporary argumentation frameworks can help move the study of argumentation in education forward.

education & educational research,psychology, educational
Argumentation framework with weighted argument structure

Jilong Wang,Guiming Luo,Bingsheng Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/COGINF.2011.6016170

2011-01-01

Abstract:Theory of argumentation constitutes a general framework for reasoning and has been widely applied in computational intelligence problems such as nonmonotonic reasoning, decision making and logic programming. To capture the internal structure of arguments, each argument is assigned with a weight, which represents the argument's credibility, to construct a numeric argumentation framework. Within this framework, attacks and preferences are endowed with strengths which are determined by the weights of arguments related. Inspired by the majority rule, properties of attacks or preferences sharing the same target are also explored. The notion of acceptability and extended theory retain the basic machinery of Dung's theory. Finally, an n-person game is formalized in numeric argumentation framework to illustrate the rationality of the new theory.
An action language-based formalisation of an abstract argumentation framework

Yann Munro,Camilo Sarmiento,Isabelle Bloch,Gauvain Bourgne,Catherine Pelachaud,Marie-Jeanne Lesot

2024-09-29

Abstract:An abstract argumentation framework is a commonly used formalism to provide a static representation of a dialogue. However, the order of enunciation of the arguments in an argumentative dialogue is very important and can affect the outcome of this dialogue. In this paper, we propose a new framework for modelling abstract argumentation graphs, a model that incorporates the order of enunciation of arguments. By taking this order into account, we have the means to deduce a unique outcome for each dialogue, called an extension. We also establish several properties, such as termination and correctness, and discuss two notions of completeness. In particular, we propose a modification of the previous transformation based on a "last enunciated last updated" strategy, which verifies the second form of completeness.

Artificial Intelligence,Logic in Computer Science
Dynamics of Argumentation Systems: A Division-Based Method

Beishui Liao,Li Jin,Robert C. Koons

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2011.03.006

IF: 14.4

2011-01-01

Artificial Intelligence

Abstract:The changing of arguments and their attack relation is an intrinsic property of a variety of argumentation systems. So, it is very important to efficiently figure out how the status of arguments in a system evolves when the system is updated. However, unlike other areas of argumentation that have been deeply explored, such as argumentation semantics, proof theories, and algorithms, etc., dynamics of argumentation systems has been comparatively neglected. In this paper, we formulate a general theory (called a division-based method) to cope with this problem based on a new concept: the division of an argumentation framework. When an argumentation framework is updated, it is divided into three parts: an unaffected, an affected, and a conditioning part. The status of arguments in the unaffected sub-framework remains unchanged, while the status of the affected arguments is computed in a special argumentation framework (called a conditioned argumentation framework, or briefly CAF) that is composed of an affected part and a conditioning part. We have proved that under a certain semantics that satisfies the directionality criterion (complete, preferred, ideal, or grounded semantics), the extensions of the updated framework are equal to the result of a combination of the extensions of an unaffected sub-framework and sets of the extensions of a set of assigned CAFs. Due to the efficiency of the division-based method, it is expected to be very useful in various kinds of argumentation systems where arguments and attacks are dynamics. (C) 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Integrating Individual Preferences into Collective Argumentation

Chonghui Li,Beishui Liao

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/logcom/exac097

2023-01-01

Journal of Logic and Computation

Abstract:In the field of collective argumentation, multiple agents may have different knowledge representations and individual preferences. In order to obtain a reasonable collective outcome for the group, either individual frameworks should be merged or individual preferences should be aggregated. However, framework merging and preference aggregation are different procedures, leading to disagreements on collective outcomes. In this paper, we figure out a solution to combine framework merging, argumentative reasoning and incomplete preference aggregation together. Furthermore, a couple of rational postulates are proposed to be the criteria for the rationality of collective outcomes obtained based on our approach.
Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks with a dual relation between defeat and defence

João Alcântara,Renan Cordeiro

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/logcom/exae006

2024-03-09

Journal of Logic and Computation

Abstract:Abstract Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks ($\textit{BAF}$s) extend Dung’s Abstract Argumentation Frameworks ($\textit{AAF}$s) by incorporating an explicit notion of support between arguments. However, there is a price to pay: the semantics for $\textit{BAF}$s often involve more intricate definitions and computational procedures than those for $\textit{AAF}$s. In this paper, we establish a dual relation between defeat and defence. Taking profit from this dual perspective, we define conflict-free sets, acceptability, extension-based and labelling-based semantics as in $\textit{AAF}$s. We also show that our definitions collapse into the corresponding concepts proposed for $\textit{AAF}$s when the support relation is ignored. In particular, we prove the semantics $\beta $-admissible, $\beta $-complete, $\beta $-grounded, $\beta $-preferred, $\beta $-stable and $\beta $-semi-stable defined here for $\textit{BAF}$s are generalisations of the corresponding semantics for $\textit{AAF}$s. Besides generalising $\textit{AAF}$s semantics to $\textit{BAF}$s, our approach also preserves some of their most remarkable results, including Dung’s Fundamental Lemma.

computer science, theory & methods,logic

Value Based Argumentation Frameworks

Semi-Abstract Value-Based Argumentation Framework

Social Welfare Semantics for Value-Based Argumentation Framework.

Characterizing Argumentation Frameworks with an Extension

Representation Equivalences among Argumentation Frameworks.

Value-based Practical Reasoning: Modal Logic + Argumentation

Updating Argumentation Frameworks for Enforcing Extensions.

The argument framework is a flexible approach to evidence in healthcare

Present and Future of Formal Argumentation (dagstuhl Perspectives Workshop 15362).

Sub-Frameworks and Local Semantics

Evidence-Based Argumentation and Its Incremental Semantics

The matrices of argumentation frameworks

Dynamics of Argumentation Systems: A Basic Theory

Abstractly Interpreting Argumentation Frameworks for Sharpening Extensions

A general semi-structured formalism for computational argumentation: Definition, properties, and examples of application.

Argumentation, Dialogue Theory, and Probability Modeling: Alternative Frameworks for Argumentation Research in Education

Argumentation framework with weighted argument structure

An action language-based formalisation of an abstract argumentation framework

Dynamics of Argumentation Systems: A Division-Based Method

Integrating Individual Preferences into Collective Argumentation

Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks with a dual relation between defeat and defence