×

Epistemic graphs for representing and reasoning with positive and negative influences of arguments. (English) Zbl 1435.68316

Summary: This paper introduces epistemic graphs as a generalization of the epistemic approach to probabilistic argumentation. In these graphs, an argument can be believed or disbelieved up to a given degree, thus providing a more fine-grained alternative to the standard Dung’s approaches when it comes to determining the status of a given argument. Furthermore, the flexibility of the epistemic approach allows us to both model the rationale behind the existing semantics as well as completely deviate from them when required. Epistemic graphs can model both attack and support as well as relations that are neither support nor attack. The way other arguments influence a given argument is expressed by the epistemic constraints that can restrict the belief we have in an argument with a varying degree of specificity. The fact that we can specify the rules under which arguments should be evaluated and we can include constraints between unrelated arguments permits the framework to be more context-sensitive. It also allows for better modelling of imperfect agents, which can be important in multi-agent applications.

MSC:

68T27 Logic in artificial intelligence
68T30 Knowledge representation
68T42 Agent technology and artificial intelligence
PDFBibTeX XMLCite
Full Text: DOI arXiv Link

References:

[1] Besnard, P.; Hunter, A., Constructing argument graphs with deductive arguments: a tutorial, Argum. Comput., 5, 1, 5-30 (2014)
[2] Rahwan, I.; Madakkatel, M.; Bonnefon, J.; Awan, R.; Abdallah, S., Behavioural experiments for assessing the abstract argumentation semantics of reinstatement, Cogn. Sci., 34, 8, 1483-1502 (2010)
[3] Polberg, S.; Hunter, A., Empirical evaluation of abstract argumentation: supporting the need for bipolar and probabilistic approaches, Int. J. Approx. Reason., 93, 487-543 (2018) · Zbl 1452.68188
[4] Bonzon, E.; Delobelle, J.; Konieczny, S.; Maudet, N., A comparative study of ranking-based semantics for abstract argumentation, (Schuurmans, D.; Wellman, M., Proceedings of AAAI’16 (2016), AAAI Press), 914-920
[5] Cayrol, C.; Lagasquie-Schiex, M.-C., Bipolarity in argumentation graphs: towards a better understanding, Int. J. Approx. Reason., 54, 7, 876-899 (2013) · Zbl 1316.68152
[6] Brewka, G.; Polberg, S.; Woltran, S., Generalizations of Dung frameworks and their role in formal argumentation, IEEE Intell. Syst., 29, 1, 30-38 (2014)
[7] Prakken, H., On support relations in abstract argumentation as abstractions of inferential relations, (Schaub, T.; Friedrich, G.; O’Sullivan, B., Proceedings ECAI’14. Proceedings ECAI’14, Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 263 (2014), IOS Press), 735-740 · Zbl 1366.68294
[8] Polberg, S., Understanding the abstract dialectical framework, (Michael, L.; Kakas, A., Proceedings of JELIA’16. Proceedings of JELIA’16, LNCS, vol. 10021 (2016), Springer), 430-446 · Zbl 1483.68384
[9] Cabrio, E.; Villata, S., A natural language bipolar argumentation approach to support users in online debate interactions, Argum. Comput., 4, 3, 209-230 (2013)
[10] Kontarinis, D.; Toni, F., Identifying malicious behavior in multi-party bipolar argumentation debates, (Rovatsos, M.; Vouros, G.; Julian, V., Proceedings of EUMAS’15 (2016), Springer), 267-278
[11] Rosenfeld, A.; Kraus, S., Strategical argumentative agent for human persuasion, (Kaminka, G. A.; Fox, M.; Bouquet, P.; Hüllermeier, E.; Dignum, V.; Dignum, F.; van Harmelen, F., Proceedings of ECAI’16. Proceedings of ECAI’16, FAIA, vol. 285 (2016), IOS Press), 320-328
[12] Cerutti, F.; Tintarev, N.; Oren, N., Formal arguments, preferences, and natural language interfaces to humans: an empirical evaluation, (Schaub, T.; Friedrich, G.; O’Sullivan, B., Proceedings of ECAI’14. Proceedings of ECAI’14, FAIA, vol. 263 (2014), IOS Press), 1033-1034
[13] Zeng, Z., Context-based and explainable decision making with argumentation, (André, E.; Koenig, S.; Dastani, M.; Sukthankar, G., Proceedings of AAMAS’18, IFAAMAS (2018)), 1114-1122
[14] Black, E.; Hunter, A., A relevance-theoretic framework for constructing and deconstructing enthymemes, J. Log. Comput., 22, 1, 55-78 (2012) · Zbl 1235.03061
[15] Ogden, J., Health Psychology: A Textbook (2012), Open University Press
[16] Cerutti, F.; Tintarev, N.; Oren, N., Human-Argumentation Experiment Pilot 2013 (2014)
[17] Cayrol, C.; Lagasquie-Schiex, M., Gradual valuation for bipolar argumentation frameworks, (Godo, L., Proceedings of ECSQARU’05. Proceedings of ECSQARU’05, LNCS, vol. 3571 (2005), Springer), 366-377 · Zbl 1122.68638
[18] Cayrol, C.; Lagasquie-Schiex, M., Graduality in argumentation, J. Artif. Intell. Res., 23, 245-297 (2005) · Zbl 1080.68608
[19] Leite, J.; Martins, J., Social abstract argumentation, (Walsh, T., Proceedings of IJCAI’11 (2011), AAAI Press), 2287-2292
[20] Amgoud, L.; Ben-Naim, J., Ranking-based semantics for argumentation frameworks, (Liu, W.; Subrahmanian, V. S.; Wijsen, J., Proceedings of SUM’13. Proceedings of SUM’13, LNCS, vol. 8078 (2013), Springer), 134-147
[21] Amgoud, L.; Ben-Naim, J.; Doder, D.; Vesic, S., Ranking arguments with compensation-based semantics, (Baral, C.; Delgrande, J.; Wolter, F., Proceedings of KR’16 (2016), AAAI Press), 12-21
[22] Amgoud, L.; Ben-Naim, J., Evaluation of arguments from support relations: Axioms and semantics, (Kambhampati, S., Proceedings of IJCAI’16 (2016), AAAI Press), 900-906
[23] Amgoud, L.; Ben-Naim, J., Axiomatic foundations of acceptability semantics, (Baral, C.; Delgrande, J.; Wolter, F., Proceedings of KR’16 (2016), AAAI Press), 2-11
[24] Rago, A.; Toni, F.; Aurisicchio, M.; Baroni, P., Discontinuity-free decision support with quantitative argumentation debates, (Baral, C.; Delgrande, J.; Wolter, F., Proceedings of KR’16 (2016), AAAI Press), 63-73
[25] Amgoud, L.; Ben-Naim, J., Evaluation of arguments in weighted bipolar graphs, (Antonucci, A.; Cholvy, L.; Papini, O., Proceedings of ECSQARU’17. Proceedings of ECSQARU’17, LNCS, vol. 10369 (2017), Springer), 25-35 · Zbl 1491.68194
[26] Amgoud, L.; Ben-Naim, J.; Doder, D.; Vesic, S., Acceptability semantics for weighted argumentation frameworks, (Sierra, C., Proceedings of IJCAI’17 (2017), AAAI Press), 56-62
[27] Thimm, M., A probabilistic semantics for abstract argumentation, (Raedt, L. D.; Bessiere, C.; Dubois, D.; Doherty, P.; Frasconi, P.; Heintz, F.; Lucas, P., Proceedings of ECAI’12. Proceedings of ECAI’12, FAIA, vol. 242 (2012), IOS Press), 750-755 · Zbl 1327.68290
[28] Hunter, A., A probabilistic approach to modelling uncertain logical arguments, Int. J. Approx. Reason., 54, 1, 47-81 (2013) · Zbl 1266.68176
[29] Hunter, A.; Thimm, M., Probabilistic argumentation with incomplete information, (Schaub, T.; Friedrich, G.; O’Sullivan, B., Proceedings of ECAI’14. Proceedings of ECAI’14, FAIA, vol. 263 (2014), IOS Press), 1033-1034
[30] da Costa Pereira, C.; Tettamanzi, A. G.B.; Villata, S., Changing one’s mind: erase or rewind? possibilistic belief revision with fuzzy argumentation based on trust, (Walsh, T., Proceedings of IJCAI’11 (2011), AAAI Press), 164-171
[31] Brewka, G.; Woltran, S., Abstract dialectical frameworks, (Lin, F.; Sattler, U.; Truszczynski, M., Proceedings of KR’10 (2010), AAAI Press), 102-111
[32] Brewka, G.; Ellmauthaler, S.; Strass, H.; Wallner, J. P.; Woltran, S., Abstract dialectical frameworks revisited, (Rossi, F., Proceedings of IJCAI’13 (2013), AAAI Press), 803-809
[33] Brewka, G.; Strass, H.; Wallner, J. P.; Woltran, S., Weighted abstract dialectical frameworks, (McIlraith, S. A.; Weinberger, K. Q., Proceedings of AAAI’18 (2018), AAAI Press), 1771-1778
[34] Hunter, A., Modelling the persuadee in asymmetric argumentation dialogues for persuasion, (Yang, Q.; Wooldridge, M., Proceedings of IJCAI’15 (2015), AAAI Press), 3055-3061
[35] Hunter, A., Persuasion dialogues via restricted interfaces using probabilistic argumentation, (Schockaert, S.; Senellart, P., Proceedings of SUM’16. Proceedings of SUM’16, LNCS, vol. 9858 (2016), Springer), 184-198
[36] Hunter, A., Two dimensional uncertainty in persuadee modelling in argumentation, (Kaminka, G. A.; Fox, M.; Bouquet, P.; Hüllermeier, E.; Dignum, V.; Dignum, F.; van Harmelen, F., Proceedings of ECAI’16. Proceedings of ECAI’16, FAIA, vol. 285 (2016), IOS Press), 150-157 · Zbl 1403.68268
[37] Hadoux, E.; Hunter, A., Computationally viable handling of beliefs in arguments for persuasion, (Bourbakis, N.; Esposito, A.; Mali, A.; Alamaniotis, M., Proceedings of ICTAI’16 (2016), IEEE), 319-326
[38] Hadoux, E.; Hunter, A., Strategic sequences of arguments for persuasion using decision trees, (Singh, S.; Markovitch, S., Proceedings of AAAI’17 (2017), AAAI Press), 1128-1134
[39] Polberg, S.; Oren, N., Revisiting support in abstract argumentation systems, (Parsons, S.; Oren, N.; Reed, C.; Cerutti, F., Proceedings of COMMA’14. Proceedings of COMMA’14, FAIA, vol. 266 (2014), IOS Press), 369-376
[40] Polberg, S.; Hunter, A., Empirical methods for modelling persuadees in dialogical argumentation, (Guerrero, J., Proceedings of ICTAI’17 (2017), IEEE), 382-389
[41] Dung, P. M., On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games, Artif. Intell., 77, 321-357 (1995) · Zbl 1013.68556
[42] Boella, G.; Gabbay, D.; van der Torre, L.; Villata, S., Support in abstract argumentation, (Baroni, P.; Cerutti, F.; Giacomin, M.; Simari, G. R., Proceedings of COMMA’10. Proceedings of COMMA’10, FAIA, vol. 216 (2010), IOS Press), 111-122
[43] Oren, N.; Norman, T. J., Semantics for evidence-based argumentation, (Besnard, P.; Doutre, S.; Hunter, A., Proceedings of COMMA’08. Proceedings of COMMA’08, FAIA, vol. 172 (2008), IOS Press), 276-284
[44] Nouioua, F.; Risch, V., Argumentation frameworks with necessities, (Benferhat, S.; Grant, J., Proceedings of SUM’11. Proceedings of SUM’11, LNCS, vol. 6929 (2011), Springer), 163-176
[45] Caminada, M.; Gabbay, D. M., A logical account of formal argumentation, Stud. Log., 93, 109-145 (2009) · Zbl 1188.03011
[46] Baroni, P.; Caminada, M.; Giacomin, M., An introduction to argumentation semantics, Knowl. Eng. Rev., 26, 4, 365-410 (2011)
[47] Pu, F.; Luo, J.; Zhang, Y.; Luo, G., Argument ranking with categoriser function, (Buchmann, R.; Kifor, C. V.; Yu, J., Proceedings of KSEM’14 (2014), Springer International Publishing), 290-301
[48] Besnard, P.; Hunter, A., A logic-based theory of deductive arguments, Artif. Intell., 128, 1, 203-235 (2001) · Zbl 0971.68143
[49] Reiter, R., On closed world data bases, (Gallaire, H.; Minker, J., Logic and Data Bases (1978), Springer), 55-76
[50] Dechter, R., Constraint Processing (2003), Morgan Kaufmann
[51] (Rossi, F.; van Beek, P.; Walsh, T., Handbook of Constraint Programming. Handbook of Constraint Programming, Foundations of Artificial Intelligence, vol. 2 (2006), Elsevier) · Zbl 1175.90011
[52] Tsang, E., Foundations of Constraint Satisfaction (1993), Academic Press
[53] Coste-Marquis, S.; Devred, C.; Marquis, P., Constrained argumentation frameworks, (Doherty, P.; Mylopoulos, J.; Welty, C., Proceedings of KR’06 (2006), AAAI Press), 112-122
[54] A. Hunter, S. Polberg, M. Thimm, Epistemic graphs for representing and reasoning with positive and negative influences of arguments, ArXiv CoRR abs/1802.07489. · Zbl 1430.68320
[55] P. van Beek, Backtracking Search Algorithms, Ch. 4, Rossi et al. [51], vol. 2, pp. 85-134.
[56] Coste-Marquis, S.; Devred, C.; Marquis, P., Prudent semantics for argumentation frameworks, (Lim, A., Proceedings of ICTAI’05 (2005), IEEE Computer Society), 568-572
[57] Coste-Marquis, S.; Devred, C.; Marquis, P., Inference from controversial arguments, (Sutcliffe, G.; Voronkov, A., Proceedings of LPAR’05. Proceedings of LPAR’05, LNCS, vol. 3835 (2005), Springer), 606-620 · Zbl 1143.68596
[58] Polberg, S., Intertranslatability of abstract argumentation frameworks (2017), Institute for Information Systems, Technical University of Vienna, Tech. Rep. DBAI-TR-2017-104
[59] Coste-Marquis, S.; Devred, C.; Konieczny, S.; Lagasquie-Schiex, M.; Marquis, P., On the merging of dung’s argumentation systems, Artif. Intell., 171, 10-15, 730-753 (2007) · Zbl 1168.68563
[60] Hunter, A., Computational persuasion with applications in behaviour change, (Baroni, P.; Gordon, T. F.; Scheffler, T.; Stede, M., Proceedings of COMMA’16. Proceedings of COMMA’16, FAIA, vol. 287 (2016), IOS Press), 5-18
[61] Tan, C.; Niculae, V.; Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, C.; Lee, L., Winning arguments: Interaction dynamics and persuasion strategies in good-faith online discussions, (Bourdeau, J.; Hendler, J.; Nkambou, R.; Horrocks, I.; Zhao, B. Y., Proceedings of WWW’16 (2016), ACM), 613-624
[62] Hunter, A.; Polberg, S.; Potyka, N., Updating Belief in Arguments in Epistemic Graphs, (Thielscher, M.; Toni, F.; Wolter, F., Proceedings of KR’18 (2018), AAAI Press), 138-147
[63] Hunter, A.; Potyka, N., Updating probabilistic epistemic states in persuasion dialogues, (Antonucci, A.; Cholvy, L.; Papini, O., Proceedings of ECSQARU’17. Proceedings of ECSQARU’17, LNCS, vol. 10369 (2017), Springer), 46-56 · Zbl 1491.68204
[64] Strass, H., Approximating operators and semantics for abstract dialectical frameworks, Artif. Intell., 205, 39-70 (2013) · Zbl 1334.68212
[65] Strass, H., Instantiating knowledge bases in abstract dialectical frameworks, (Leite, J.; Son, T. C.; Torroni, P.; van der Torre, L.; Woltran, S., Proceedings of CLIMA’13. Proceedings of CLIMA’13, LNCS, vol. 8143 (2013), Springer), 86-101 · Zbl 1343.68229
[66] Strass, H.; Wallner, J. P., Analyzing the Computational Complexity of Abstract Dialectical Frameworks via Approximation Fixpoint Theory, Artif. Intell., 226, 34-74 (2015) · Zbl 1346.68188
[67] Polberg, S., Developing the abstract dialectical framework (2017), Technical University of Vienna: Technical University of Vienna Vienna, Austria, PhD thesis
[68] Pührer, J., Realizability of three-valued semantics for abstract dialectical frameworks, (Yang, Q.; Wooldridge, M., Proceedings of IJCAI’15 (2015), AAAI Press), 3171-3177
[69] Polberg, S.; Doder, D., Probabilistic abstract dialectical frameworks, (Fermé, E.; Leite, J., Proceedings of JELIA’14. Proceedings of JELIA’14, LNCS, vol. 8761 (2014), Springer), 591-599 · Zbl 1343.68228
[70] Polberg, S.; Hunter, A.; Thimm, M., Belief in attacks in epistemic probabilistic argumentation, (Moral, S.; Pivert, O.; Sánchez, D.; Marín, N., Proceedings of SUM’17. Proceedings of SUM’17, LNCS, vol. 10564 (2017), Springer), 223-236 · Zbl 1498.68305
[71] Pearl, J., Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference (2000), Cambridge University Press · Zbl 0959.68116
[72] Barber, D., Bayesian Reasoning and Machine Learning (2012), Cambridge University Press · Zbl 1267.68001
[73] Parsons, S., On precise and correct qualitative probabilistic reasoning, Int. J. Approx. Reason., 35, 111-135 (2004) · Zbl 1068.68148
[74] Timmer, S.; Meyer, J.; Prakken, H.; Renooij, S.; Verheij, B., A two-phase method for extracting explanatory arguments from Bayesian networks, Int. J. Approx. Reason., 80, 475-494 (2017) · Zbl 1401.68331
[75] Hadoux, E.; Hunter, A., Learning and updating user models for subpopulations in persuasive argumentation using beta distributions, (André, E.; Koenig, S.; Dastani, M.; Sukthankar, G., Proceedings of AAMAS’18. Proceedings of AAMAS’18, IFAAMAS (2018)), 1141-1149
[76] Li, H.; Oren, N.; Norman, T. J., Probabilistic argumentation frameworks, (Modgil, S.; Oren, N.; Toni, F., Proceedings of TAFA’11. Proceedings of TAFA’11, LNCS, vol. 7132 (2011), Springer), 1-16
[77] Fazzinga, B.; Flesca, S.; Parisi, F., On the complexity of probabilistic abstract argumentation frameworks, ACM Trans. Comput. Log., 16, 3, Article 22:1 pp. (2015) · Zbl 1354.68253
This reference list is based on information provided by the publisher or from digital mathematics libraries. Its items are heuristically matched to zbMATH identifiers and may contain data conversion errors. In some cases that data have been complemented/enhanced by data from zbMATH Open. This attempts to reflect the references listed in the original paper as accurately as possible without claiming completeness or a perfect matching.