scholarly journals Strong admissibility for abstract dialectical frameworks

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-41
Author(s):  
Atefeh Keshavarzi Zafarghandi ◽  
Rineke Verbrugge ◽  
Bart Verheij
Keyword(s):  
Maximal Element ◽  
Decision Problems ◽  
Current Work ◽  
Argument Evaluation ◽  
Abstract Argumentation ◽  
Proper Generalization

Abstract dialectical frameworks (ADFs) have been introduced as a formalism for modeling argumentation allowing general logical satisfaction conditions and the relevant argument evaluation. Different criteria used to settle the acceptance of arguments are called semantics. Semantics of ADFs have so far mainly been defined based on the concept of admissibility. However, the notion of strongly admissible semantics studied for abstract argumentation frameworks has not yet been introduced for ADFs. In the current work we present the concept of strong admissibility of interpretations for ADFs. Further, we show that strongly admissible interpretations of ADFs form a lattice with the grounded interpretation as the maximal element. We also present algorithms to answer the following decision problems: (1) whether a given interpretation is a strongly admissible interpretation of a given ADF, and (2) whether a given argument is strongly acceptable/deniable in a given interpretation of a given ADF. In addition, we show that the strongly admissible semantics of ADFs forms a proper generalization of the strongly admissible semantics of AFs.

Semi-Stable Semantics for Abstract Dialectical Frameworks

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Atefeh Keshavarzi Zafarghandi ◽  
Rineke Verbrugge ◽  
Bart Verheij
Keyword(s):  
Current Work ◽  
Abstract Argumentation ◽  
Stable Semantics ◽  
Proper Generalization ◽  
Stable Models

Abstract dialectical frameworks (ADFs) have been introduced as a formalism for modeling and evaluating argumentation allowing general logical satisfaction conditions. Different criteria that have been used to settle the acceptance of arguments are called semantics. However, the notion of semi-stable semantics as studied for abstract argumentation frameworks has received little attention for ADFs. In the current work, we present the concepts of semi-two-valued models and semi-stable models for ADFs. We show that these two notions satisfy a set of plausible properties required for semi-stable semantics of ADFs. Moreover, we show that semi-two-valued and semi-stable semantics of ADFs form a proper generalization of the semi-stable semantics of AFs, just like two-valued model and stable semantics for ADFs are generalizations of stable semantics for AFs.

Bipolar Abstract Argumentation with Dual Attacks and Supports

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nico Potyka
Keyword(s):  
Computational Complexity ◽  
Decision Problems ◽  
Abstract Argumentation ◽  
Stable Semantics ◽  
Support Relations ◽  
Support Relationships ◽  
Computational Properties ◽  
Inherent Tendency

Bipolar abstract argumentation frameworks allow modeling decision problems by defining pro and contra arguments and their relationships. In some popular bipolar frameworks, there is an inherent tendency to favor either attack or support relationships. However, for some applications, it seems sensible to treat attack and support equally. Roughly speaking, turning an attack edge into a support edge, should just invert its meaning. We look at a recently introduced bipolar argumentation semantics and two novel alternatives and discuss their semantical and computational properties. Interestingly, the two novel semantics correspond to stable semantics if no support relations are present and maintain the computational complexity of stable semantics in general bipolar frameworks.

scholarly journals An experimental analysis on the similarity of argumentation semantics

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 269-304
Author(s):  
Federico Cerutti ◽  
Matthias Thimm ◽  
Mauro Vallati
Keyword(s):  
Approximation Algorithm ◽  
Experimental Analysis ◽  
Learning Phase ◽  
Decision Problems ◽  
Simple Approximation ◽  
Approximation Approach ◽  
Abstract Argumentation ◽  
Grounded Semantics ◽  
Theoretical Results

In this paper we ask whether approximation for abstract argumentation is useful in practice, and in particular whether reasoning with grounded semantics – which has polynomial runtime – is already an approximation approach sufficient for several practical purposes. While it is clear from theoretical results that reasoning with grounded semantics is different from, for example, skeptical reasoning with preferred semantics, we investigate how significant this difference is in actual argumentation frameworks. As it turns out, in many graphs models, reasoning with grounded semantics actually approximates reasoning with other semantics almost perfectly. An algorithm for grounded reasoning is thus a conceptually simple approximation algorithm that not only does not need a learning phase – like recent approaches – but also approximates well – in practice – several decision problems associated to other semantics.

scholarly journals Complexity of Abstract Argumentation under a Claim-Centric View

2019 ◽  
Vol 33 ◽  
pp. 2801-2808 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wolfgang Dvořák ◽  
Stefan Woltran
Keyword(s):  
Knowledge Base ◽  
Complexity Analysis ◽  
Decision Problems ◽  
Fixed Parameter Tractability ◽  
Abstract Argumentation ◽  
Complexity Results ◽  
Fixed Parameter

Abstract argumentation frameworks have been introduced by Dung as part of an argumentation process, where arguments and conflicts are derived from a given knowledge base. It is solely this relation between arguments that is then used in order to identify acceptable sets of arguments. A final step concerns the acceptance status of particular statements by reviewing the actual contents of the acceptable arguments. Complexity analysis of abstract argumentation so far has neglected this final step and is concerned with argument names instead of their contents, i.e. their claims. As we outline in this paper, this is not only a slight deviation but can lead to different complexity results. We, therefore, give a comprehensive complexity analysis of abstract argumentation under a claim-centric view and analyse the four main decision problems under seven popular semantics. In addition, we also address the complexity of common sub-classes and introduce novel parameterisations – which exploit the nature of claims explicitly – along with fixed-parameter tractability results.

Choices and their Consequences - Explaining Acceptable Sets in Abstract Argumentation Frameworks

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ringo Baumann ◽  
Markus Ulbricht
Keyword(s):  
Computational Complexity ◽  
Characteristic Function ◽  
Decision Problems ◽  
Argumentation Framework ◽  
Abstract Argumentation ◽  
Exhaustive Study ◽  
The Given ◽  
Made In

We develop a notion of explanations for acceptance of arguments in an abstract argumentation framework. To this end we show that extensions returned by Dung's standard semantics can be decomposed into i) non-deterministic choices made on even cycles of the given argumentation graph and then ii) deterministic iteration of the so-called characteristic function. Naturally, the choice made in i) can be viewed as an explanation for the corresponding extension and thus the arguments it contains. We proceed to propose desirable criteria a reasonable notion of an explanation should satisfy. We present an exhaustive study of the newly introduced notion w.r.t. these criteria. Finally some interesting decision problems arise from our analysis and we examine their computational complexity, obtaining some surprising tractability results.

Impairment Tutorial: Rating Facial Disfigurement After an Injury

1998 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
pp. 6-6
Author(s):  
Marc T. Taylor
Keyword(s):  
Current Work ◽  
Workers Compensation ◽  
Loss Of Function ◽  
Facial Disfigurement ◽  
Work Related ◽  
Work Related Injury ◽  
Compensation Claim ◽  
Impairment Ratings

Abstract This article discusses two important cases that involve the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides). First, in Vargas v Industrial Com’n of Arizona, a claimant had a pre-existing non–work-related injury to his right knee as well as a work-related injury, and the issue was apportionment of the pre-existing injury. The court held that, under Arizona's statute, the impairment from the pre-existing injury should be subtracted from the current work-related impairment. In the second case, Colorado courts addressed the issue of apportionment in a workers’ compensation claim in which the pre-existing injury was asymptomatic at the time of the work-related injury (Askey v Industrial Claim Appeals Office). In this case, the court held that the worker's benefits should not be reduced to account for an asymptomatic pre-existing condition that could not be rated accurately using the AMA Guides. The AMA Guides bases impairment ratings on anatomic or physiologic loss of function, and if an examinee presents with two or more sequential injuries and calculable impairments, the AMA Guides can be used to apportion between pre-existing and subsequent impairments. Courts often use the AMA Guides to decide statutorily determined benefits and are subject to interpretation by courts and administrative bodies whose interpretations may vary from state to state.

Structuring Situational Information

2015 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 176-189 ◽  
Author(s):  
John F. Rauthmann
Keyword(s):  
Statistical Analyses ◽  
Current Work ◽  
Common Language ◽  
Road Map ◽  
Taxonomic Approach ◽  
Situational Information

Abstract. There is as yet no consensually agreed-upon situational taxonomy. The current work addresses this issue and reviews extant taxonomic approaches by highlighting a “road map” of six research stations that lead to the observed diversity in taxonomies: (1) theoretical and conceptual guidelines, (2) the “type” of situational information studied, (3) the general taxonomic approach taken, (4) the generation of situation pools, (5) the assessment and rating of situational information, and (6) the statistical analyses of situation data. Current situational taxonomies are difficult to integrate because they follow different paths along these six stations. Some suggestions are given on how to spur integrated taxonomies toward a unified psychology of situations that speaks a common language.

Measuring the Situational Eight DIAMONDS Characteristics of Situations

2016 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 155-164 ◽  
Author(s):  
John F. Rauthmann ◽  
Ryne A. Sherman
Keyword(s):  
Psychological Characteristics ◽  
Current Work

Abstract. It has been suggested that people perceive psychological characteristics of situations on eight major dimensions ( Rauthmann et al., 2014 ): The “Situational Eight” DIAMONDS (Duty, Intellect, Adversity, Mating, pOsitivity, Negativity, Deception, Sociality). These dimensions have been captured with the 32-item RSQ-8. The current work optimizes the RSQ-8 to derive more economical yet informative and precise scales, captured in the newly developed S8*. Nomological associations of the original RSQ-8 and the S8* with situation cues (extracted from written situation descriptions) were compared. Application areas of the S8* are outlined.

“That line’s got personality!” – The Big 5 as a Model of Personality Perception

2015 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 277-280
Author(s):  
Matthew T. Gailliot
Keyword(s):  
Current Work ◽  
Big 5 ◽  
Past Work ◽  
Straight Line ◽  
Personality Perception ◽  
Personality Ratings ◽  
And Behavior ◽  
Meaningful Sense

Personality – enduring traits describing how people tend to think and behave – often is described by the Big 5 model. Everything people do and think can be described as representing 1 of 5 more general traits. Though the Big 5 model has been posited to describe actual thought and behavior, the current work tested the hypothesis that personality ratings would fit the Big 5 model even when the target being rated does not have a personality in any meaningful sense. Supporting this hypothesis, the Big 5 model showed acceptable fit for describing a person (consistent with past work), but also a straight line drawn on paper, something that should not have personality in any meaningful sense. The Big 5 model thus does not necessarily describe actual thought and behavior but instead the structure of personality perception.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document