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.
Amongst the graph propagation approaches, we mention the equational approaches that assign a more fine grained ranking to arguments by evaluating fixed points of functions that assign a numerical value to any given argument based on the values of its attackers. In particular, the equational approach of Gabbay and Rodrigues @cite_30 who conjecture that their approach yields a unique solution for cyclic graphs, the compensation based semantics of Amgoud et.al. @cite_5 , which assigns the same ranking to all arguments in cycles and yield a unique solution for cyclic graphs, and the social argumentation approach of Leite and Martin () @cite_33 (who are concerned with propagating user votes on arguments, but also yield fine grained rankings without recourse to exogenous information).
@cite_30 @cite_5 @cite_33
2139906443 2884913901 2007477772 2518510348
This paper presents a new approach for learning in structured domains (SDs) using a constructive neural network for graphs (NN4G). The new model allows the extension of the input domain for supervised neural networks to a general class of graphs including both acyclic cyclic, directed undirected labeled graphs. In particular, the model can realize adaptive contextual transductions, learning the mapping from graphs for both classification and regression tasks. In contrast to previous neural networks for structures that had a recursive dynamics, NN4G is based on a constructive feedforward architecture with state variables that uses neurons with no feedback connections. The neurons are applied to the input graphs by a general traversal process that relaxes the constraints of previous approaches derived by the causality assumption over hierarchical input data. Moreover, the incremental approach eliminates the need to introduce cyclic dependencies in the definition of the system state variables. In the traversal process, the NN4G units exploit (local) contextual information of the graphs vertices. In spite of the simplicity of the approach, we show that, through the compositionality of the contextual information developed by the learning, the model can deal with contextual information that is incrementally extended according to the graphs topology. The effectiveness and the generality of the new approach are investigated by analyzing its theoretical properties and providing experimental results. This paper addresses the semantics of weighted argumentation graphs that are bipolar, i.e. contain both attacks and supports for arguments. It builds on previous work by Amgoud, Ben-Naim et. al. We study the various characteristics of acceptability semantics that have been introduced in these works, and introduce the notion of a modular acceptability semantics. A semantics is modular if it cleanly separates aggregation of attacking and supporting arguments (for a given argument @math ) from the computation of their influence on @math 's initial weight. We show that the various semantics for bipolar argumentation graphs from the literature may be analysed as a composition of an aggregation function with an influence function. Based on this modular framework, we prove general convergence and divergence theorems. We demonstrate that all well-behaved modular acceptability semantics converge for all acyclic graphs and that no sum-based semantics can converge for all graphs. In particular, we show divergence of Euler-based semantics () for certain cyclic graphs. Further, we provide the first semantics for bipolar weighted graphs that converges for all graphs. Graph-based approaches have been most successful in semisupervised learning. In this paper, we focus on label propagation in graph-based semisupervised learning. One essential point of label propagation is that the performance is heavily affected by incorporating underlying manifold of given data into the input graph. The other more important point is that in many recent real-world applications, the same instances are represented by multiple heterogeneous data sources. A key challenge under this setting is to integrate different data representations automatically to achieve better predictive performance. In this paper, we address the issue of obtaining the optimal linear combination of multiple different graphs under the label propagation setting. For this problem, we propose a new formulation with the sparsity (in coefficients of graph combination) property which cannot be rightly achieved by any other existing methods. This unique feature provides two important advantages: 1) the improvement of prediction performance by eliminating irrelevant or noisy graphs and 2) the interpretability of results, i.e., easily identifying informative graphs on classification. We propose efficient optimization algorithms for the proposed approach, by which clear interpretations of the mechanism for sparsity is provided. Through various synthetic and two real-world data sets, we empirically demonstrate the advantages of our proposed approach not only in prediction performance but also in graph selection ability. We propose a new task in the field of computational argumentation in which we investigate qualitative properties of Web arguments, namely their convincingness. We cast the problem as relation classification, where a pair of arguments having the same stance to the same prompt is judged. We annotate a large datasets of 16k pairs of arguments over 32 topics and investigate whether the relation “A is more convincing than B” exhibits properties of total ordering; these findings are used as global constraints for cleaning the crowdsourced data. We propose two tasks: (1) predicting which argument from an argument pair is more convincing and (2) ranking all arguments to the topic based on their convincingness. We experiment with feature-rich SVM and bidirectional LSTM and obtain 0.76-0.78 accuracy and 0.35-0.40 Spearman’s correlation in a cross-topic evaluation. We release the newly created corpus UKPConvArg1 and the experimental software under open licenses.