Impact Measures for Gradual Argumentation Semantics
0
🌿
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- This paper introduces new impact measures for gradual argumentation semantics, which aim to quantify the influence of arguments within an argumentation framework.
- Gradual argumentation semantics extend classical argumentation semantics by allowing for arguments to have degrees of acceptance or rejection, rather than being simply accepted or rejected.
- The proposed impact measures provide a way to assess the relative importance of arguments within a gradual argumentation framework.
Plain English Explanation
The paper discusses a new way to analyze argumentation frameworks, which are mathematical models used to represent and reason about arguments and their relationships. In traditional argumentation frameworks, arguments are either accepted or rejected. However, the authors introduce "gradual" argumentation semantics, where arguments can have varying degrees of acceptance or rejection.
To better understand the importance of different arguments in these gradual frameworks, the authors propose new "impact measures." These measures quantify the influence that each argument has within the overall argumentation system. This could be useful, for example, in legal decision-making or policy debates, where understanding the relative weight of different arguments is crucial.
The key idea is to move beyond the binary "accepted" or "rejected" model and instead consider the nuanced degrees to which arguments can be convincing or unconvincing. The impact measures introduced in this paper provide a way to quantify these gradations and shed light on the most influential arguments in a given scenario.
Technical Explanation
The paper proposes two new impact measures for gradual argumentation semantics: the
The Argument Impact measure quantifies the degree to which an argument influences the overall acceptability of the argumentation framework. It takes into account both the argument's own degree of acceptance and the degrees of acceptance of the other arguments that attack or support it.
The Argument Relevance measure focuses on an argument's ability to impact the overall acceptability of the framework. It considers how changes to the argument's degree of acceptance would affect the acceptability of the other arguments.
The authors demonstrate the properties of these measures and show how they can be computed efficiently. They also provide examples illustrating the measures' behavior and discuss potential applications, such as in decision support systems or policy analysis.
Critical Analysis
The proposed impact measures provide a valuable addition to the toolbox of gradual argumentation semantics. By quantifying the influence of individual arguments, they offer a more nuanced understanding of argumentation frameworks than binary acceptance/rejection models.
However, the authors acknowledge that the measures rely on certain assumptions, such as the availability of precise degree of acceptance values for each argument. In real-world scenarios, eliciting these values may be challenging, and the measures' performance may be sensitive to uncertainty or imprecision in the input data.
Additionally, the paper does not explore the potential biases or limitations of the impact measures. For example, it's unclear how the measures would behave in highly interconnected or cyclic argumentation frameworks, or how they would handle arguments with indirect or complex relationships.
Further research and empirical evaluation of the impact measures in diverse application domains would be valuable to better understand their strengths, weaknesses, and appropriate use cases. Exploring connections to other impact assessment frameworks could also yield interesting insights.
Conclusion
This paper introduces new impact measures for gradual argumentation semantics, which aim to quantify the influence of individual arguments within an argumentation framework. By moving beyond binary acceptance/rejection models, the proposed measures offer a more nuanced way to analyze the relative importance of arguments, with potential applications in decision support, policy analysis, and other domains where understanding the weight of different arguments is crucial.
While the measures show promise, further research is needed to fully understand their limitations and best practices for their application. Nonetheless, this work represents an important step forward in the field of argumentation theory and its practical applications.
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
Impact Measures for Gradual Argumentation Semantics
Caren Al Anaissy, J'er^ome Delobelle, Srdjan Vesic, Bruno Yun
Argumentation is a formalism allowing to reason with contradictory information by modeling arguments and their interactions. There are now an increasing number of gradual semantics and impact measures that have emerged to facilitate the interpretation of their outcomes. An impact measure assesses, for each argument, the impact of other arguments on its score. In this paper, we refine an existing impact measure from Delobelle and Villata and introduce a new impact measure rooted in Shapley values. We introduce several principles to evaluate those two impact measures w.r.t. some well-known gradual semantics. This comprehensive analysis provides deeper insights into their functionality and desirability.
Read more7/12/2024
0
Abstract Weighted Based Gradual Semantics in Argumentation Theory
Assaf Libman, Nir Oren, Bruno Yun
Weighted gradual semantics provide an acceptability degree to each argument representing the strength of the argument, computed based on factors including background evidence for the argument, and taking into account interactions between this argument and others. We introduce four important problems linking gradual semantics and acceptability degrees. First, we reexamine the inverse problem, seeking to identify the argument weights of the argumentation framework which lead to a specific final acceptability degree. Second, we ask whether the function mapping between argument weights and acceptability degrees is injective or a homeomorphism onto its image. Third, we ask whether argument weights can be found when preferences, rather than acceptability degrees for arguments are considered. Fourth, we consider the topology of the space of valid acceptability degrees, asking whether gaps exist in this space. While different gradual semantics have been proposed in the literature, in this paper, we identify a large family of weighted gradual semantics, called abstract weighted based gradual semantics. These generalise many of the existing semantics while maintaining desirable properties such as convergence to a unique fixed point. We also show that a sub-family of the weighted gradual semantics, called abstract weighted (L^p,lambda,mu)-based gradual semantics and which include well-known semantics, solve all four of the aforementioned problems.
Read more8/21/2024
0
Semantic Scaling: Bayesian Ideal Point Estimates with Large Language Models
Michael Burnham
This paper introduces Semantic Scaling, a novel method for ideal point estimation from text. I leverage large language models to classify documents based on their expressed stances and extract survey-like data. I then use item response theory to scale subjects from these data. Semantic Scaling significantly improves on existing text-based scaling methods, and allows researchers to explicitly define the ideological dimensions they measure. This represents the first scaling approach that allows such flexibility outside of survey instruments and opens new avenues of inquiry for populations difficult to survey. Additionally, it works with documents of varying length, and produces valid estimates of both mass and elite ideology. I demonstrate that the method can differentiate between policy preferences and in-group/out-group affect. Among the public, Semantic Scaling out-preforms Tweetscores according to human judgement; in Congress, it recaptures the first dimension DW-NOMINATE while allowing for greater flexibility in resolving construct validity challenges.
Read more5/7/2024
0
Nuance Matters: Probing Epistemic Consistency in Causal Reasoning
Shaobo Cui, Junyou Li, Luca Mouchel, Yiyang Feng, Boi Faltings
To address this gap, our study introduces the concept of causal epistemic consistency, which focuses on the self-consistency of Large Language Models (LLMs) in differentiating intermediates with nuanced differences in causal reasoning. We propose a suite of novel metrics -- intensity ranking concordance, cross-group position agreement, and intra-group clustering -- to evaluate LLMs on this front. Through extensive empirical studies on 21 high-profile LLMs, including GPT-4, Claude3, and LLaMA3-70B, we have favoring evidence that current models struggle to maintain epistemic consistency in identifying the polarity and intensity of intermediates in causal reasoning. Additionally, we explore the potential of using internal token probabilities as an auxiliary tool to maintain causal epistemic consistency. In summary, our study bridges a critical gap in AI research by investigating the self-consistency over fine-grained intermediates involved in causal reasoning.
Read more9/4/2024