Cyclic Supports in Recursive Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks: Semantics and LP Mapping
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- The research paper discusses cyclic supports in recursive bipolar argumentation frameworks (RBAFs).
- It examines the semantics and logical programming (LP) mapping of these frameworks.
- The paper is supported by projects Tech4You, FAIR, and SERICS.
Plain English Explanation
The research explores a type of argumentation framework called a recursive bipolar argumentation framework (RBAF). In these frameworks, arguments can not only attack each other, but also support each other. Importantly, this support can happen in a cyclic way, where argument A supports argument B, which in turn supports argument A.
The paper looks at how to define the semantics, or meaning, of these cyclic support relationships. It also investigates how to map these RBAFs onto a logical programming (LP) system, which allows computers to reason about the arguments and their relationships.
The key idea is to understand how cyclic supports impact the way arguments are evaluated and which ones are considered acceptable. This has important implications for various applications that use argumentation frameworks, such as decision support systems, legal reasoning, and debating AI.
Technical Explanation
The paper begins by introducing recursive bipolar argumentation frameworks (RBAFs), which extend traditional bipolar argumentation frameworks to allow for cyclic support relationships between arguments.
The authors then define several semantics for evaluating the acceptability of arguments in the presence of cyclic supports. These include admissible, preferred, stable, and grounded semantics, adapted to handle the additional complexity introduced by cycles.
To reason about these RBAFs computationally, the paper provides a mapping to logic programming (LP). This allows the RBAF and its semantics to be expressed as an LP program, enabling the use of off-the-shelf LP solvers to determine the set of acceptable arguments.
The authors also discuss the relationship between RBAFs and assumption-based argumentation frameworks, showing how the former can be seen as a generalization of the latter.
Critical Analysis
The paper provides a thorough theoretical treatment of cyclic supports in RBAFs, defining appropriate semantics and demonstrating the computational tractability of the approach through the LP mapping. However, the authors do not discuss any real-world applications or empirical evaluations of their framework.
While the theoretical foundations are sound, it would be valuable to see how these concepts perform in practical scenarios, such as decision support systems or legal reasoning tasks. Applying the RBAF model to such domains and assessing its performance, expressiveness, and scalability would strengthen the overall contribution of the research.
Additionally, the paper does not address potential issues that may arise from cyclic supports, such as the possibility of infinite loops or counterintuitive argument evaluations. Exploring these edge cases and discussing mitigation strategies would enhance the robustness of the proposed approach.
Conclusion
This research paper advances the understanding of cyclic supports in recursive bipolar argumentation frameworks. By defining appropriate semantics and providing a mapping to logic programming, the authors demonstrate the computational feasibility of reasoning about these complex argumentation structures.
The theoretical contributions of this work have the potential to impact various applications that rely on argumentation frameworks, such as decision support systems, legal reasoning, and debating AI. However, to fully realize this potential, future research should focus on real-world evaluations, edge case analysis, and further exploring the practical implications of cyclic supports in argumentation.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
0
Cyclic Supports in Recursive Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks: Semantics and LP Mapping
Gianvincenzo Alfano, Sergio Greco, Francesco Parisi, Irina Trubitsyna
Dung's Abstract Argumentation Framework (AF) has emerged as a key formalism for argumentation in Artificial Intelligence. It has been extended in several directions, including the possibility to express supports, leading to the development of the Bipolar Argumentation Framework (BAF), and recursive attacks and supports, resulting in the Recursive BAF (Rec-BAF). Different interpretations of supports have been proposed, whereas for Rec-BAF (where the target of attacks and supports may also be attacks and supports) even different semantics for attacks have been defined. However, the semantics of these frameworks have either not been defined in the presence of support cycles, or are often quite intricate in terms of the involved definitions. We encompass this limitation and present classical semantics for general BAF and Rec-BAF and show that the semantics for specific BAF and Rec-BAF frameworks can be defined by very simple and intuitive modifications of that defined for the case of AF. This is achieved by providing a modular definition of the sets of defeated and acceptable elements for each AF-based framework. We also characterize, in an elegant and uniform way, the semantics of general BAF and Rec-BAF in terms of logic programming and partial stable model semantics.
Read more8/20/2024
0
Instantiations and Computational Aspects of Non-Flat Assumption-based Argumentation
Tuomo Lehtonen, Anna Rapberger, Francesca Toni, Markus Ulbricht, Johannes P. Wallner
Most existing computational tools for assumption-based argumentation (ABA) focus on so-called flat frameworks, disregarding the more general case. In this paper, we study an instantiation-based approach for reasoning in possibly non-flat ABA. We make use of a semantics-preserving translation between ABA and bipolar argumentation frameworks (BAFs). By utilizing compilability theory, we establish that the constructed BAFs will in general be of exponential size. In order to keep the number of arguments and computational cost low, we present three ways of identifying redundant arguments. Moreover, we identify fragments of ABA which admit a poly-sized instantiation. We propose two algorithmic approaches for reasoning in possibly non-flat ABA. The first approach utilizes the BAF instantiation while the second works directly without constructing arguments. An empirical evaluation shows that the former outperforms the latter on many instances, reflecting the lower complexity of BAF reasoning. This result is in contrast to flat ABA, where direct approaches dominate instantiation-based approaches.
Read more5/27/2024
đ¸
0
On the Equivalence between Logic Programming and SETAF
Jo~ao Alc^antara, Renan Cordeiro, Samy S'a
A framework with sets of attacking arguments (SETAF) is an extension of the well-known Dung's Abstract Argumentation Frameworks (AAFs) that allows joint attacks on arguments. In this paper, we provide a translation from Normal Logic Programs (NLPs) to SETAFs and vice versa, from SETAFs to NLPs. We show that there is pairwise equivalence between their semantics, including the equivalence between L-stable and semi-stable semantics. Furthermore, for a class of NLPs called Redundancy-Free Atomic Logic Programs (RFALPs), there is also a structural equivalence as these back-and-forth translations are each other's inverse. Then, we show that RFALPs are as expressive as NLPs by transforming any NLP into an equivalent RFALP through a series of program transformations already known in the literature. We also show that these program transformations are confluent, meaning that every NLP will be transformed into a unique RFALP. The results presented in this paper enhance our understanding that NLPs and SETAFs are essentially the same formalism. Under consideration in Theory and Practice of Logic Programming (TPLP).
Read more7/9/2024
0
CE-QArg: Counterfactual Explanations for Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks (Technical Report)
Xiang Yin, Nico Potyka, Francesca Toni
There is a growing interest in understanding arguments' strength in Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks (QBAFs). Most existing studies focus on attribution-based methods that explain an argument's strength by assigning importance scores to other arguments but fail to explain how to change the current strength to a desired one. To solve this issue, we introduce counterfactual explanations for QBAFs. We discuss problem variants and propose an iterative algorithm named Counterfactual Explanations for Quantitative bipolar Argumentation frameworks (CE-QArg). CE-QArg can identify valid and cost-effective counterfactual explanations based on two core modules, polarity and priority, which help determine the updating direction and magnitude for each argument, respectively. We discuss some formal properties of our counterfactual explanations and empirically evaluate CE-QArg on randomly generated QBAFs.
Read more7/12/2024