Argument & Computation最新文献

A tribute to Trevor Bench-Capon (1953–2024) 向特雷弗-本奇-卡朋（1953-2024）致敬

Argument & Computation Pub Date : 2024-07-12 DOI: 10.3233/aac-241521

引用次数: 0

ω-Groundedness of argumentation and completeness of grounded dialectical proof procedures ω-论证的基础性和基础辩证证明程序的完备性

Argument & Computation Pub Date : 2024-07-03 DOI: 10.3233/aac-230009

P. M. Dung, Phan Minh Than, Jiraporn Pooksoo

引用次数: 0

Evaluating large language models’ ability to generate interpretive arguments 评估大型语言模型生成解释性论据的能力

Argument & Computation Pub Date : 2024-06-06 DOI: 10.3233/aac-230014

Zaid Marji, John Licato

{"title":"Evaluating large language models’ ability to generate interpretive arguments","authors":"Zaid Marji, John Licato","doi":"10.3233/aac-230014","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3233/aac-230014","url":null,"abstract":"In natural language understanding, a crucial goal is correctly interpreting open-textured phrases. In practice, disagreements over the meanings of open-textured phrases are often resolved through the generation and evaluation of interpretive arguments, arguments designed to support or attack a specific interpretation of an expression within a document. In this paper, we discuss some of our work towards the goal of automatically generating and evaluating interpretive arguments. We have curated a set of rules from the code of ethics of various professional organizations and a set of associated scenarios that are ambiguous with respect to some open-textured phrase within the rule. We collected and evaluated arguments from both human annotators and state-of-the-art generative language models in order to determine the relative quality and persuasiveness of both sets of arguments. Finally, we performed a Turing test-inspired study in order to assess whether human annotators can tell the difference between human arguments and machine-generated arguments. The results show that machine-generated arguments, when prompted a certain way, can be consistently rated as more convincing than human-generated arguments, and to the untrained eye, the machine-generated arguments can convincingly sound human-like.","PeriodicalId":299930,"journal":{"name":"Argument & Computation","volume":"107 1‐4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-06-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141381293","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Annotated insights into legal reasoning: A dataset of Article 6 ECHR cases 对法律推理的注释式洞察：欧洲人权公约》第 6 条案件数据集

Argument & Computation Pub Date : 2024-06-04 DOI: 10.3233/aac-240002

J. Mumford, Katie Atkinson, T. Bench-Capon

引用次数: 0

The third and fourth international competitions on computational models of argumentation: Design, results and analysis 第三届和第四届论证计算模型国际竞赛：设计、结果和分析

Argument & Computation Pub Date : 2024-04-23 DOI: 10.3233/aac-230013

Stefano Bistarelli, Lars Kotthoff, Jean-Marie Lagniez, Emmanuel Lonca, Jean-Guy Mailly, J. Rossit, Francesco Santini, Carlo Taticchi

{"title":"The third and fourth international competitions on computational models of argumentation: Design, results and analysis","authors":"Stefano Bistarelli, Lars Kotthoff, Jean-Marie Lagniez, Emmanuel Lonca, Jean-Guy Mailly, J. Rossit, Francesco Santini, Carlo Taticchi","doi":"10.3233/aac-230013","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3233/aac-230013","url":null,"abstract":"The International Competition on Computational Models of Argumentation (ICCMA) focuses on reasoning tasks in abstract argumentation frameworks. Submitted solvers are tested on a selected collection of benchmark instances, including artificially generated argumentation frameworks and some frameworks formalizing real-world problems. This paper presents the novelties introduced in the organization of the Third (2019) and Fourth (2021) editions of the competition. In particular, we proposed new tracks to competitors, one dedicated to dynamic solvers (i.e., solvers that incrementally compute solutions of frameworks obtained by incrementally modifying original ones) in ICCMA’19 and one dedicated to approximate algorithms in ICCMA’21. From the analysis of the results, we noticed that i) dynamic recomputation of solutions leads to significant performance improvements, ii) approximation provides much faster results with satisfactory accuracy, and iii) classical solvers improved with respect to previous editions, thus revealing advancement in state of the art.","PeriodicalId":299930,"journal":{"name":"Argument & Computation","volume":"7 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-04-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140666439","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Attack semantics and collective attacks revisited 重温攻击语义和集体攻击

Argument & Computation Pub Date : 2024-03-25 DOI: 10.3233/aac-230011

Martin Caminada, Matthias König, Anna Rapberger, Markus Ulbricht

{"title":"Attack semantics and collective attacks revisited","authors":"Martin Caminada, Matthias König, Anna Rapberger, Markus Ulbricht","doi":"10.3233/aac-230011","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3233/aac-230011","url":null,"abstract":"In the current paper we re-examine the concepts of attack semantics and collective attacks in abstract argumentation, and examine how these concepts interact with each other. For this, we systematically map the space of possibilities. Starting with standard argumentation frameworks (which consist of a directed graph with nodes and arrows) we briefly state both node semantics and arrow semantics (the latter a.k.a. attack semantics) in both their extensions-based form and labellings-based form. We then proceed with SETAFs (which consist of a directed hypergraph of nodes and arrows, to take into account the notion of collective attacks) and state both node semantics and arrow semantics, in both their extensions-based and labellings-based form. We then show equivalence between the extensions-based and labellings-based form, for node semantics and arrow semantics of AFs, as well as for node semantics and arrow semantics of SETAFs. Moreover, we show equivalence between node semantics and arrow semantics for AFs, and equivalence between node semantics and arrow semantics for SETAFs (with the notable exception of semi-stable). We also provide a novel way of converting a SETAF to an AF such that semantics are preserved, without the use of any “meta arguments”. Although the main part of our work is on the level of abstract argumentation, we do provide an application of our theory on the instantiated level. More specifically, we show that the classical characterisation of Assumption-Based Argumentation (ABA) can be seen as an instantiation based on a SETAF, whereas the contemporary characterisation of ABA can be seen as an instantiation based on a standard AF. Our theory of how to convert a SETAF to an AF can then be used to account for both the similarities and the differences between the classical and contemporary characterisations of ABA. Most prominently, our theory is able to explain the semantic mismatch for semi-stable semantics that arises in the ABA instantiation process.","PeriodicalId":299930,"journal":{"name":"Argument & Computation","volume":" 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140381850","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Tractable algorithms for strong admissibility 强可接受性的可实现算法

Argument & Computation Pub Date : 2024-03-22 DOI: 10.3233/aac-230012

Martin Caminada, Sri Harikrishnan

{"title":"Tractable algorithms for strong admissibility","authors":"Martin Caminada, Sri Harikrishnan","doi":"10.3233/aac-230012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3233/aac-230012","url":null,"abstract":"Much like admissibility is the key concept underlying preferred semantics, strong admissibility is the key concept underlying grounded semantics, as membership of a strongly admissible set is sufficient to show membership of the grounded extension. As such, strongly admissible sets and labellings can be used as an explanation of membership of the grounded extension, as is for instance done in some of the proof procedures for grounded semantics. In the current paper, we present two polynomial algorithms for constructing relatively small strongly admissible labellings, with associated min–max numberings, for a particular argument. These labellings can be used as relatively small explanations for the argument’s membership of the grounded extension. Although our algorithms are not guaranteed to yield an absolute minimal strongly admissible labelling for the argument (as doing so would have implied an exponential complexity), our best performing algorithm yields results that are only marginally larger. Moreover, the runtime of this algorithm is an order of magnitude smaller than that of the existing approach for computing an absolute minimal strongly admissible labelling for a particular argument. As such, we believe that our algorithms can be of practical value in situations where the aim is to construct a minimal or near-minimal strongly admissible labelling in a time-efficient way.","PeriodicalId":299930,"journal":{"name":"Argument & Computation","volume":" 24","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140213620","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Explanation–Question–Response dialogue: An argumentative tool for explainable AI 解释-提问-回答对话：可解释人工智能的论证工具

Argument & Computation Pub Date : 2024-03-21 DOI: 10.3233/aac-230015

Federico Castagna, P. McBurney, S. Parsons

{"title":"Explanation–Question–Response dialogue: An argumentative tool for explainable AI","authors":"Federico Castagna, P. McBurney, S. Parsons","doi":"10.3233/aac-230015","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3233/aac-230015","url":null,"abstract":"Advancements and deployments of AI-based systems, especially Deep Learning-driven generative language models, have accomplished impressive results over the past few years. Nevertheless, these remarkable achievements are intertwined with a related fear that such technologies might lead to a general relinquishing of our lives’s control to AIs. This concern, which also motivates the increasing interest in the eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) research field, is mostly caused by the opacity of the output of deep learning systems and the way that it is generated, which is largely obscure to laypeople. A dialectical interaction with such systems may enhance the users’ understanding and build a more robust trust towards AI. Commonly employed as specific formalisms for modelling intra-agent communications, dialogue games prove to be useful tools to rely upon when dealing with user’s explanation needs. The literature already offers some dialectical protocols that expressly handle explanations and their delivery. This paper fully formalises the novel Explanation–Question–Response (EQR) dialogue and its properties, whose main purpose is to provide satisfactory information (i.e., justified according to argumentative semantics) whilst ensuring a simplified protocol, in comparison with other existing approaches, for humans and artificial agents.","PeriodicalId":299930,"journal":{"name":"Argument & Computation","volume":" 44","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-03-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140222047","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Assumption-based argumentation for extended disjunctive logic programming and its relation to nonmonotonic reasoning 基于假设的扩展断据逻辑编程论证及其与非单调推理的关系

Argument & Computation Pub Date : 2023-11-24 DOI: 10.3233/aac-220019

T. Wakaki

{"title":"Assumption-based argumentation for extended disjunctive logic programming and its relation to nonmonotonic reasoning","authors":"T. Wakaki","doi":"10.3233/aac-220019","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3233/aac-220019","url":null,"abstract":"The motivation of this study is that Reiter’s default theory as well as assumption-based argumentation frameworks corresponding to default theories have difficulties in handling disjunctive information, while a disjunctive default theory (ddt) avoids them. This paper presents the semantic correspondence between generalized assumption-based argumentation (ABA) and extended disjunctive logic programming as well as the correspondence between ABA and nonmonotonic reasoning approaches such as disjunctive default logic and prioritized circumscription. To overcome the above-mentioned difficulties of ABA frameworks corresponding to default theories, we propose an assumption-based framework (ABF) translated from an extended disjunctive logic program (EDLP) since an EDLP can be translated into a ddt. Our ABF incorporates explicit negation and the connective of disjunction “|” to Heyninck and Arieli’s ABF induced by a disjunctive logic program. In this paper, first, we show how arguments are constructed from disjunctive rules in our proposed ABF. Then, we show the correspondence between answer sets of an EDLP P and stable extensions of the ABF translated from P with trivialization rules. After defining rationality postulates, we show answer sets of a consistent EDLP are captured by consistent stable extensions of the translated ABF with no trivialization rules. Finally, we show the correspondence between ABA and disjunctive default logic (resp. prioritized circumscription). The relation between ABA and possible model semantics of EDLPs is also discussed.","PeriodicalId":299930,"journal":{"name":"Argument & Computation","volume":"4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139241066","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Justification, stability and relevance in incomplete argumentation frameworks 不完整论证框架中的正当性、稳定性和相关性

Argument & Computation Pub Date : 2023-11-17 DOI: 10.3233/aac-230002

Daphne Odekerken, Annemarie Borg, Floris Bex

{"title":"Justification, stability and relevance in incomplete argumentation frameworks","authors":"Daphne Odekerken, Annemarie Borg, Floris Bex","doi":"10.3233/aac-230002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3233/aac-230002","url":null,"abstract":"We explore the computational complexity of justification, stability and relevance in incomplete argumentation frameworks (IAFs). IAFs are abstract argumentation frameworks that encode qualitative uncertainty by distinguishing between certain and uncertain arguments and attacks. These IAFs can be completed by deciding for each uncertain argument or attack whether it is present or absent. Such a completion is an abstract argumentation framework, for which it can be decided which arguments are acceptable under a given semantics. The justification status of an argument in a completion then expresses whether the argument is accepted (in), not accepted because it is attacked by an accepted argument (out) or neither (undec). For a given IAF and certain argument, the justification status of that argument need not be the same in all completions. This is the issue of stability, where an argument is stable if its justification status is the same in all completions. For arguments that are not stable in an IAF, the relevance problem is of interest: which uncertain arguments or attacks should be investigated for the argument to become stable? In this paper, we define justification, stability and relevance for IAFs and provide a complexity analysis for these problems under grounded, complete, preferred and stable semantics.","PeriodicalId":299930,"journal":{"name":"Argument & Computation","volume":"4 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139263538","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Argument &amp; Computation最新文献

Argument & Computation最新文献