Abstract The paper develops a formal theory of the degree of justification of arguments, which relies solely on the structure of an argumentation framework, and which can be successfully interfaced with approaches to instantiated argumentation. The theory is developed in three steps. First, the paper introduces a graded generalization of the two key notions underpinning Dung's semantics: self-defense and conflict-freeness. This leads to a natural generalization of Dung's semantics, whereby standard extensions are weakened or strengthened depending on the level of self-defense and conflict-freeness they meet. The paper investigates the fixpoint theory of these semantics, establishing existence results for them. Second, the paper shows how graded semantics readily provide an approach to argument rankings, offering a novel contribution to the recently growing research programme on ranking-based semantics. Third, this novel approach to argument ranking is applied and studied in the context of instantiated argumentation frameworks, and in so doing is shown to account for a simple form of accrual of arguments within the Dung paradigm. Finally, the theory is compared in detail with existing approaches.
Properties of rankings have been proposed by the above works, and a very informative comparison of these approaches---in particular , , (for acyclic @math s), , and ---in terms of whether or not these properties are satisfied, has been provided in @cite_3 . It is instructive to study these properties as they apply to our graded rankings, in part because such a study reveals fundamental distinctions between propagation based and Dung semantics based approaches to evaluation of arguments.
@cite_3
2110693578 2317824144 2140237757 2891615286
We introduce a stochastic graph-based method for computing relative importance of textual units for Natural Language Processing. We test the technique on the problem of Text Summarization (TS). Extractive TS relies on the concept of sentence salience to identify the most important sentences in a document or set of documents. Salience is typically defined in terms of the presence of particular important words or in terms of similarity to a centroid pseudo-sentence. We consider a new approach, LexRank, for computing sentence importance based on the concept of eigenvector centrality in a graph representation of sentences. In this model, a connectivity matrix based on intra-sentence cosine similarity is used as the adjacency matrix of the graph representation of sentences. Our system, based on LexRank ranked in first place in more than one task in the recent DUC 2004 evaluation. In this paper we present a detailed analysis of our approach and apply it to a larger data set including data from earlier DUC evaluations. We discuss several methods to compute centrality using the similarity graph. The results show that degree-based methods (including LexRank) outperform both centroid-based methods and other systems participating in DUC in most of the cases. Furthermore, the LexRank with threshold method outperforms the other degree-based techniques including continuous LexRank. We also show that our approach is quite insensitive to the noise in the data that may result from an imperfect topical clustering of documents. Top-k dominating queries combine the natural idea of selecting the k best items with a comprehensive “goodness” criterion based on dominance. A point p1 dominates p2 if p1 is as good as p2 in all attributes and is strictly better in at least one. Existing works address the problem in settings where data objects are multidimensional points. However, there are domains where we only have access to the distance between two objects. In cases like these, attributes reflect distances from a set of input objects and are dynamically generated as the input objects change. Consequently, prior works from the literature cannot be applied, despite the fact that the dominance relation is still meaningful and valid. For this reason, in this work, we present the first study for processing top-k dominating queries over distance-based dynamic attribute vectors, defined over a metric space. We propose four progressive algorithms that utilize the properties of the underlying metric space to efficiently solve the problem and present an extensive, comparative evaluation on both synthetic and real-world datasets. When dealing with massive quantities of data, top-k queries are a powerful technique for returning only the k most relevant tuples for inspection, based on a scoring function. The problem of efficiently answering such ranking queries has been studied and analyzed extensively within traditional database settings. The importance of the top-k is perhaps even greater in probabilistic databases, where a relation can encode exponentially many possible worlds. There have been several recent attempts to propose definitions and algorithms for ranking queries over probabilistic data. However, these all lack many of the intuitive properties of a top-k over deterministic data. Specifically, we define a number of fundamental properties, including exact-k, containment, unique-rank, value-invariance, and stability, which are all satisfied by ranking queries on certain data. We argue that all these conditions should also be fulfilled by any reasonable definition for ranking uncertain data. Unfortunately, none of the existing definitions is able to achieve this. To remedy this shortcoming, this work proposes an intuitive new approach of expected rank. This uses the well-founded notion of the expected rank of each tuple across all possible worlds as the basis of the ranking. We are able to prove that, in contrast to all existing approaches, the expected rank satisfies all the required properties for a ranking query. We provide efficient solutions to compute this ranking across the major models of uncertain data, such as attribute-level and tuple-level uncertainty. For an uncertain relation of N tuples, the processing cost is O(N logN)—no worse than simply sorting the relation. In settings where there is a high cost for generating each tuple in turn, we provide pruning techniques based on probabilistic tail bounds that can terminate the search early and guarantee that the top-k has been found. Finally, a comprehensive experimental study confirms the effectiveness of our approach. We propose a new graded semantics for abstract argumentation frameworks that is based on the constellations approach to probabilistic argumentation. Given an abstract argumentation framework, our approach assigns uniform probability to all arguments and then ranks arguments according to the probability of acceptance wrt. some classical semantics. Albeit relying on a simple idea this approach (1) is based on the solid theoretical foundations of probability theory, and (2) complies with many rationality postulates proposed for graded semantics. We also investigate an application of our approach for inconsistency measurement in argumentation frameworks and show that the measure induced by the probabilistic graded semantics also complies with the basic rationality postulates from that area.