Preliminary Study on Reinstatement Labelling for Weighted Argumentation Frameworks

•

0 gefällt mir•39 views

Argumentation Theory allows for reasoning with uncertain and controversial information, and provides tools for deciding which arguments (for instance, of a debate) can be accepted together. The strength of an argument and its attacks can be expressed through weighted argumentation frameworks; in this case, the selection criteria, called semantics, used to identify the sets of acceptable arguments, need to take into account the information given by the weights. In this paper, we conduct an initial study on a novel labelling semantics for weighted argumentation frameworks, extending and generalising the crisp one.

Bildung

PRELIMINARY STUDY ON
REINSTATEMENT LABELLING FOR
WEIGHTED ARGUMENTATION FRAMEWORKS
Stefano Bistarelli and Carlo Taticchi

Preliminary Study on Reinstatement Labelling for WAFsCarlo Taticchi — November 19, 2019
OVERVIEW
▸ Extension-Based Semantics
▸ Reinstatement Labelling
▸ Weighted AFs
▸ Weighted Labelling
▸ Conclusion
2
ConArg

Preliminary Study on Reinstatement Labelling for WAFsCarlo Taticchi — November 19, 2019
EXTENSION-BASED SEMANTICS1
3
1Phan Minh Dung. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person
games. Artiﬁcial Intelligence, 77(2):321–357.
AdmissibleConﬂict-Free Complete
{a}, {c}, {d}, … {a, d}, {a, d, e}, … {a, b, c, d}

Preliminary Study on Reinstatement Labelling for WAFsCarlo Taticchi — November 19, 2019
REINSTATEMENT LABELLING2,3
4
IN if it is attacked only by OUT arguments
OUT if it is attacked by at least an IN argument
UNDEC otherwise
2Martin Caminada. On the Issue of Reinstatement in Argumentation. JELIA 2006: 111-123.
3Hadassa Jakobovits and Dirk Vermeir. Robust Semantics for Argumentation Frameworks. J. Log. Comput., 9(2), 215–261, (1999).
Correspondence
between
extension and
labelling

Preliminary Study on Reinstatement Labelling for WAFsCarlo Taticchi — November 19, 2019
LABELLING-BASED SEMANTICS
5
a is IN a is not attacked by any IN
a is OUT a is attacked by some IN
CF

Preliminary Study on Reinstatement Labelling for WAFsCarlo Taticchi — November 19, 2019 6
a is IN a is only attacked by OUT
a is OUT a is attacked by some IN
ADM
LABELLING-BASED SEMANTICS

Preliminary Study on Reinstatement Labelling for WAFsCarlo Taticchi — November 19, 2019 7
a is IN a is only attacked by OUT
a is OUT a is attacked by some IN
⟺
⟺
COM
LABELLING-BASED SEMANTICS

Preliminary Study on Reinstatement Labelling for WAFsCarlo Taticchi — November 19, 2019
WEIGHTED ARGUMENTATION FRAMEWORKS (WAFS)
8
▸ The acceptability of the arguments also depends on the weights
▸ Different notion of defence

Preliminary Study on Reinstatement Labelling for WAFsCarlo Taticchi — November 19, 2019
SEMIRING-BASED WAFS3
9
▸
▸
▸
▸
WAF 𝕊 : ⟨𝒜, R, W, 𝕊⟩
𝕊 : ⟨S, ⊕ , ⊗ , ⊥ , ⊤ ⟩
𝕊weighted = ⟨ℝ+
∪ {+∞}, min, + , + ∞,0⟩
W(ℬ, 𝒟) =
⨂
b∈ℬ,d∈𝒟
W(b, d)
2Stefano Bistarelli, Francesco Santini. A Common Computational Framework for Semiring-based Argumentation Systems. ECAI 2010: 131-136.

Preliminary Study on Reinstatement Labelling for WAFsCarlo Taticchi — November 19, 2019
WEIGHTED DEFENCE4
10
4Stefano Bistarelli, Fabio Rossi, Francesco Santini. A Collective Defence Against Grouped Attacks for Weighted Abstract Argumentation
Frameworks. FLAIRS Conference 2016: 638-643.
▸ {a, b, d} and {a, b, e} are the w-complete extensions
▸ {a, b, d, e} is not w-complete (2+3 < 4+4)

Preliminary Study on Reinstatement Labelling for WAFsCarlo Taticchi — November 19, 2019
LABELLING-BASED SEMANTICS FOR WAFS
11
▸ The w-conﬂict-free and the conﬂict-free labelling coincides
a is IN a is not attacked by any IN
a is OUT a is attacked by some IN
CFW-CF

Preliminary Study on Reinstatement Labelling for WAFsCarlo Taticchi — November 19, 2019
LABELLING-BASED SEMANTICS FOR WAFS
12
a is IN
a is OUT
⟹ a−
= a−
|OUT ∧ ∀b ∈ a−
. wb−|IN
≤ 𝕊 wb+|IN
⟹ wa−|IN
< 𝕊 ⊤
W-ADM

Preliminary Study on Reinstatement Labelling for WAFsCarlo Taticchi — November 19, 2019
LABELLING-BASED SEMANTICS FOR WAFS
13
a is IN
a is OUT
⟹ a−
= a−
|OUT ∧ ∀b ∈ a−
. wb−|IN
≤ 𝕊 wb+|IN
⟹ wa−|IN
< 𝕊 ⊤
W-ADM

Preliminary Study on Reinstatement Labelling for WAFsCarlo Taticchi — November 19, 2019
LABELLING-BASED SEMANTICS FOR WAFS
14
W-COM
a is IN
a is OUT
⟺ a−
= a−
|OUT ∧ ∀b ∈ a−
. wb−|IN∪{a} ≤ 𝕊 wb+|IN∪{a}
⟺ wa−|IN
< 𝕊 ⊤

Preliminary Study on Reinstatement Labelling for WAFsCarlo Taticchi — November 19, 2019
CONCLUSION
16
▸ Tool available at www.dmi.unipg.it/conarg
▸ Preliminary work on Labelling
Semantics for WAFs
• Conﬂict-free
• Admissible
• Complete
• Preferred
• Stable

Preliminary Study on Reinstatement Labelling for WAFsCarlo Taticchi — November 19, 2019
NEXTCONCLUSION
17
▸ Weighted Labelling for
• (Quasi-)Strongly-
Admissible
• Grounded
▸ Tool available at www.dmi.unipg.it/conarg
▸ Preliminary work on Labelling
Semantics for WAFs
• Conﬂict-free
• Admissible
• Complete
• Preferred
• Stable

PRELIMINARY STUDY ON
REINSTATEMENT LABELLING FOR
WEIGHTED ARGUMENTATION FRAMEWORKS
Stefano Bistarelli and Carlo Taticchi
Thanks for your attention!

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

In many formalisms extending Dung’s Abstract Argumentation Frameworks (AFs), arguments are not always “present”. In timed AFs, for instance, arguments are only available in precise intervals of time, as they can appear and disappear in an intermittent manner; in incomplete AFs, both attacks and arguments can be absent; in constellation probabilistic AFs (attacks and) arguments have a probability to be present or not, and possible worlds are generated for the computation of the semantics. We review current approaches and propose a four-state labelling semantics to take in account such absent/unknown state of an argument. The four labels we use can be traced to the states a belief can assume, allowing us to also define operations related to belief manipulation, like expansion contraction and revision. We also discuss how labels/states of arguments in an AFs can be modified by using belief revision operations.

A Unifying Four-State Labelling Semantics for Bridging Abstract Argumentation...

Carlo Taticchi

In this thesis, we study the dynamics of AFs from multiple perspectives with the purpose of better understanding how dynamic (and concurrent) processes can be handled in the context of argumentation. In this sense, we provide theoretical results, algorithms and tools which can be useful in many dynamic aspects of argumentation. Before arriving to define our concurrent language, we set the theoretical results we need to work with dynamics aspect of argumentation.

Handling Dynamic Aspects of Argumentation

Carlo Taticchi

We study invariant local expansion operators for conflict-free and admissible sets in Abstract Argumentation Frameworks (AFs). Such operators are directly applied on AFs, and are invariant with respect to a chosen “semantics” (that is w.r.t. each of the conflict free/admissible set of arguments). Accordingly, we derive a definition of robustness for AFs in terms of the number of times such operators can be applied without producing any change in the chosen semantics.

Looking for Invariant Operators in Argumentation

Carlo Taticchi

The paper provides an initial study on how ranking semantics in argumentation have to be handled when leaving the purely abstract setting. We employ claim-augmented frameworks where each argument is associated to a claim it stands for. We propose liftings from argument- to claim-level in two veins: for desired properties and for actual rankings. Our main contribution is to investigate whether the satisfaction of properties by argument-based ranking semantics carries over to the lifted, claim-based, variants of the corresponding properties and semantics.

Ranking-Based Semantics from the Perspective of Claims

Carlo Taticchi

Looking for Invariant Operators in Argumentation

Carlo Taticchi

Complex Arguments in Adpositional Argumentation

Federico Gobbo

Slides bracis 2019

Federal University of Technology of Parana

ISMVL12

Spyros Hadjichristodoulou

On the Computational Complexity of Intuitionistic Hybrid Modal Logic

Alexandre Rademaker

Was ist angesagt? (9)

A Unifying Four-State Labelling Semantics for Bridging Abstract Argumentation...

Handling Dynamic Aspects of Argumentation

Looking for Invariant Operators in Argumentation

Ranking-Based Semantics from the Perspective of Claims

Looking for Invariant Operators in Argumentation

Complex Arguments in Adpositional Argumentation

Slides bracis 2019

ISMVL12

On the Computational Complexity of Intuitionistic Hybrid Modal Logic

Mehr von Carlo Taticchi

Modelling the behaviour of concurrent agents that interact and reason in a dynamic environment is a difficult task. It requires tools that can effectively capture different types of interactions, such as persuasion and deliberation, while helping agents make decisions or reach agreements. This paper proposes a revised and extended version of the (timed) concurrent language for argumentation, better suited for modelling real-world scenarios. Our focus is on private information: we have given each agent a local argumentation store for reasoning with private knowledge. With this feature, agents can use the argumentation engine to implement courses of action based on their personal information and only disclose the bare minimum. Finally, we present an application example that models a privacy-preserving multi-agent decision-making process to demonstrate the capabilities of our language.

On the Role of Local Arguments in the (Timed) Concurrent Language for Argumen...

Carlo Taticchi

Abstract Argumentation Frameworks (AFs) are used, in the field of Artificial Intelligence, to evaluate the justification state of conflicting information, thus allowing the development of automatic reasoning techniques and systems. Complex argumentative processes such as decision-making and negotiation, which take place over time, can be modelled through the Concurrent Language for Argumentation, a formalism for handling concurrent interactions between intelligent agents that use an AF as shared memory. In this paper, we first show how AFs can be interpreted as dependency graphs by exploiting the relation between arguments induced by the attacks. Then, we describe a methodology for obtaining a procedure that generates the given AF. Such a procedure allows to dynamically represent dialogues and other forms of interaction that brought to the instantiation of the specified AF.

Session3_ 52_Taticchi.pdf

Carlo Taticchi

The requirement of explainability is gaining more and more importance in Artificial Intelligence applications based on Machine Learning techniques, especially in those contexts where critical decisions are entrusted to software systems (think, for example, of financial and medical consultancy). In this paper, we propose an Argumentation-based methodology for explaining the results predicted by Machine Learning models. Argumentation provides frameworks that can be used to represent and analyse logical relations between pieces of information, serving as a basis for constructing human tailored rational explanations to a given problem. In particular, we use extension-based semantics to find the rationale behind a class prediction.

Arg-XAI: a Tool for Explaining Machine Learning Results

Carlo Taticchi

Computational Argumentation provides tools for both modelling and reasoning with controversial information. The building blocks in this field are represented by Abstract Argumentation Frameworks, namely structures which explicit the relationships between arguments in order to establish their acceptability. Indeed, arguments can be assigned different justification states: some of the arguments may be accepted, while some other rejected; it could also be the case that some arguments are ignored. Labels corresponding to such states are assigned through sets of criteria called labelling-based semantics. In this paper, we consider Weighted Argumentation Frameworks and propose a novel labelling-based semantics which differentiates four different states, also generalising existing approaches.

A Four-State Labelling Semantics for Weighted Argumentation Frameworks

Carlo Taticchi

Time is a crucial factor in modelling dynamic behaviours of intelligent agents: in a real-world environment, activities have a determined temporal duration and the behaviour of agents is influenced by the actions previously taken. In this paper, we propose a language for modelling concurrent interaction between agents that also allows the specification of temporal intervals in which particular actions occur. Such a language exploits a timed version of Abstract Argumentation Frameworks to realise a shared memory used by the agents both to communicate and to reason on the acceptability of their beliefs with respect to a given time interval. An interleaving model on a single processor is used for basic computation steps (with maximal parallelism for time elapsing). Following this approach, at each moment only one of the enabled agents is executed.

Timed Concurrent Language for Argumentation: an Interleaving Approach

Carlo Taticchi

Agent-based modelling languages naturally implement concurrency for handling complex interactions between communicating agents. On the other hand, the field of Argumentation Theory lacks of instruments to explicitly model concurrent behaviours. In this paper we introduce a tool for dealing with concurrent argumentation processes and that can be used, for instance, to model agents debating, negotiating and persuading. The tool implements operations as expansion, contraction and revision. We also provide a web interface exposing the functionalities of the tool and allowing for a more careful study of concurrent processes.

Introducing a Tool for Concurrent Argumentation

Carlo Taticchi

Argumentation Theory offers formalisms suitable for the study of reasoning processes taking place between intelligent entities. In this context, time is a crucial factor: in a real-world environment, activities have a determined temporal duration and the behaviour of agents is influenced by the actions previously taken. While agent-based modelling languages naturally implement concurrency and time constraints, the currently available languages for argumentation do not allow to explicitly model this type of behaviours. In this paper, we propose a language for modelling concurrent interaction between agents that also allows the specification of temporal intervals in which particular actions occur. Such a language, that we call Timed Concurrent Language for Argumentation, allows agents to communicate with each other and to reason on the acceptability of their beliefs with respect to a given time interval. We also show how Timed Abstract Argumentation Frameworks can be modelled by combining time and concurrency.

Timed Concurrent Language for Argumentation

Carlo Taticchi

A Chatbot Extended with Argumentation

Carlo Taticchi

The Timed Concurrent Language for Argumentation (tcla) is a framework to model concurrent interactions between communicating agents that reason and take decisions through argumentation processes, also taking into account the temporal duration of the performed actions. Time is, indeed, a crucial factor when dealing with dynamic environments in real-world applications, where agents need to act in a coordinated fashion to reach their own goals. In this paper, we discuss the syntax and the operational semantics of tcla, providing insights on how its constructs can be used to realise complex interactions between agents.

Concurrent Argumentation with Time: an Overview

Carlo Taticchi

While agent-based modelling languages naturally implement concurrency, the currently available languages for argumentation do not allow to explicitly model this type of interaction. In this paper we introduce a concurrent language for handling process arguing and communicating using a shared argumentation framework (reminding shared constraint store as in concurrent constraint). We introduce also basic expansions, contraction and revision procedures as main bricks for enforcement, debate, negotiation and persuasion.

A Concurrent Language for Argumentation: Preliminary Notes

Carlo Taticchi

A Concurrent Language for Argumentation

Carlo Taticchi

The Third International Competition on Computational Models of Argumentation (ICCMA’19) focuses on reasoning tasks in abstract argumentation frameworks. Submitted solvers are tested on a selected collection of benchmark instances, including artificially generated argumentation frameworks and some frameworks formalizing real-world problems. This competition introduces two main novelties: the first one is the use of Docker for packaging the participating solvers in virtual light containers; the second consists of a new track devised for dynamic frameworks.

Third International Competition on Computational Models of Argumentation

Carlo Taticchi

The International Competition on Computational Models of Argumentation (ICCMA) is a successful event dedicated to advancing the state of the art of solvers in Abstract Argumentation. We describe two proposals that will further improve the third and next edition of the competition, i.e. ICCMA 2019. The first novelty concerns the packaging of each solver-application participating in the competition in a virtual “light” container (using Docker): this allows for easy deployment and to (re)running all of the submissions on different architectures (Linux, Windows, macOS, and also in the cloud). The second proposal consists of a new track focused on solvers processing dynamic frameworks, i.e., solvers described in terms of changes w.r.t. previous ones: a solver can reuse the solution obtained previously to be faster on the same framework modulo a new argument/attack.

Containerisation and Dynamic Frameworks in ICCMA’19

Carlo Taticchi

Mehr von Carlo Taticchi (13)

On the Role of Local Arguments in the (Timed) Concurrent Language for Argumen...

Session3_ 52_Taticchi.pdf

Arg-XAI: a Tool for Explaining Machine Learning Results

A Four-State Labelling Semantics for Weighted Argumentation Frameworks

Timed Concurrent Language for Argumentation: an Interleaving Approach

Introducing a Tool for Concurrent Argumentation

Timed Concurrent Language for Argumentation

A Chatbot Extended with Argumentation

Concurrent Argumentation with Time: an Overview

A Concurrent Language for Argumentation: Preliminary Notes

A Concurrent Language for Argumentation

Third International Competition on Computational Models of Argumentation

Containerisation and Dynamic Frameworks in ICCMA’19

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Wizards are very useful for creating a good user experience. In all businesses, interactive sessions are most beneficial. To improve the user experience, wizards in Odoo provide an interactive session. For creating wizards, we can use transient models or abstract models. This gives features of a model class except the data storing. Transient and abstract models have permanent database persistence. For them, database tables are made, and the records in such tables are kept until they are specifically erased.

How to Create and Manage Wizard in Odoo 17

Celine George

On_Translating_a_Tamil_Poem_by_A_K_Ramanujan.pptx

Pooja Bhuva

This presentation covers the essential parameters of Unit 2 Operations Processes of the subject Operations & Supply Chain Management. Topics Covered: Volume Variety and Flow. Types of Processes and Operations Systems - Continuous Flow system and intermittent flow systems.Job Production, Batch Production, Assembly line and Continuous Flow, Process and Product Layout. Design of Service Systems, Service Blueprinting.

OSCM Unit 2_Operations Processes & Systems

Sandeep D Chaudhary

80 ĐỀ THI THỬ TUYỂN SINH TIẾNG ANH VÀO 10 SỞ GD – ĐT THÀNH PHỐ HỒ CHÍ MINH NĂ...

Nguyen Thanh Tu Collection

Sociology 101 Demonstration of Learning Exhibit

jbellavia9

The basics of sentences session 3pptx.pptx

heathfieldcps1

How to Add New Custom Addons Path in Odoo 17

Celine George

Mehran University Newsletter Vol-X, Issue-I, 2024

Mehran University of Engineering & Technology, Jamshoro

Philosophy of china and it's charactistics

hameyhk98

Python Notes for mca i year students osmania university.docx

Ramakrishna Reddy Bijjam

𝐋𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐎𝐮𝐭𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐬: -Discern accommodations and modifications within inclusive classroom environments, distinguishing between their respective roles and applications. -Through critical analysis of hypothetical scenarios, learners will adeptly select appropriate accommodations and modifications, honing their ability to foster an inclusive learning environment for students with disabilities or unique challenges.

Understanding Accommodations and Modifications

MJDuyan

Sensory_Experience_and_Emotional_Resonance_in_Gabriel_Okaras_The_Piano_and_Th...

Pooja Bhuva

21st_Century_Skills_Framework_Final_Presentation_2.pptx

JoelynRubio1

Jamworks pilot and AI at Jisc (20/03/2024)

Jisc

SOC 101 Demonstration of Learning Presentation

camerronhm

Unit 3 Emotional Intelligence and Spiritual Intelligence.pdf

Dr Vijay Vishwakarma

Kodo Millet PPT made by Ghanshyam bairwa college of Agriculture kumher bhara...

pradhanghanshyam7136

Wellbeing inclusion and digital dystopias.pptx

Jisc

FSB Advising Checklist - Orientation 2024

Elizabeth Walsh

Towards a code of practice for AI in AT.pptx

Jisc

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

How to Create and Manage Wizard in Odoo 17

On_Translating_a_Tamil_Poem_by_A_K_Ramanujan.pptx

OSCM Unit 2_Operations Processes & Systems

80 ĐỀ THI THỬ TUYỂN SINH TIẾNG ANH VÀO 10 SỞ GD – ĐT THÀNH PHỐ HỒ CHÍ MINH NĂ...

Sociology 101 Demonstration of Learning Exhibit

The basics of sentences session 3pptx.pptx

How to Add New Custom Addons Path in Odoo 17

Mehran University Newsletter Vol-X, Issue-I, 2024

Philosophy of china and it's charactistics

Python Notes for mca i year students osmania university.docx

Understanding Accommodations and Modifications

Sensory_Experience_and_Emotional_Resonance_in_Gabriel_Okaras_The_Piano_and_Th...

21st_Century_Skills_Framework_Final_Presentation_2.pptx

Jamworks pilot and AI at Jisc (20/03/2024)

SOC 101 Demonstration of Learning Presentation

Unit 3 Emotional Intelligence and Spiritual Intelligence.pdf

Kodo Millet PPT made by Ghanshyam bairwa college of Agriculture kumher bhara...

Wellbeing inclusion and digital dystopias.pptx

FSB Advising Checklist - Orientation 2024

Towards a code of practice for AI in AT.pptx

Preliminary Study on Reinstatement Labelling for Weighted Argumentation Frameworks

1. PRELIMINARY STUDY ON REINSTATEMENT LABELLING FOR WEIGHTED ARGUMENTATION FRAMEWORKS Stefano Bistarelli and Carlo Taticchi

2. Preliminary Study on Reinstatement Labelling for WAFsCarlo Taticchi — November 19, 2019 OVERVIEW ▸ Extension-Based Semantics ▸ Reinstatement Labelling ▸ Weighted AFs ▸ Weighted Labelling ▸ Conclusion 2 ConArg

3. Preliminary Study on Reinstatement Labelling for WAFsCarlo Taticchi — November 19, 2019 EXTENSION-BASED SEMANTICS1 3 1Phan Minh Dung. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artiﬁcial Intelligence, 77(2):321–357. AdmissibleConﬂict-Free Complete {a}, {c}, {d}, … {a, d}, {a, d, e}, … {a, b, c, d}

4. Preliminary Study on Reinstatement Labelling for WAFsCarlo Taticchi — November 19, 2019 REINSTATEMENT LABELLING2,3 4 IN if it is attacked only by OUT arguments OUT if it is attacked by at least an IN argument UNDEC otherwise 2Martin Caminada. On the Issue of Reinstatement in Argumentation. JELIA 2006: 111-123. 3Hadassa Jakobovits and Dirk Vermeir. Robust Semantics for Argumentation Frameworks. J. Log. Comput., 9(2), 215–261, (1999). Correspondence between extension and labelling

5. Preliminary Study on Reinstatement Labelling for WAFsCarlo Taticchi — November 19, 2019 LABELLING-BASED SEMANTICS 5 a is IN a is not attacked by any IN a is OUT a is attacked by some IN CF

6. Preliminary Study on Reinstatement Labelling for WAFsCarlo Taticchi — November 19, 2019 6 a is IN a is only attacked by OUT a is OUT a is attacked by some IN ADM LABELLING-BASED SEMANTICS

7. Preliminary Study on Reinstatement Labelling for WAFsCarlo Taticchi — November 19, 2019 7 a is IN a is only attacked by OUT a is OUT a is attacked by some IN ⟺ ⟺ COM LABELLING-BASED SEMANTICS

8. Preliminary Study on Reinstatement Labelling for WAFsCarlo Taticchi — November 19, 2019 WEIGHTED ARGUMENTATION FRAMEWORKS (WAFS) 8 ▸ The acceptability of the arguments also depends on the weights ▸ Different notion of defence

9. Preliminary Study on Reinstatement Labelling for WAFsCarlo Taticchi — November 19, 2019 SEMIRING-BASED WAFS3 9 ▸ ▸ ▸ ▸ WAF 𝕊 : ⟨𝒜, R, W, 𝕊⟩ 𝕊 : ⟨S, ⊕ , ⊗ , ⊥ , ⊤ ⟩ 𝕊weighted = ⟨ℝ+ ∪ {+∞}, min, + , + ∞,0⟩ W(ℬ, 𝒟) = ⨂ b∈ℬ,d∈𝒟 W(b, d) 2Stefano Bistarelli, Francesco Santini. A Common Computational Framework for Semiring-based Argumentation Systems. ECAI 2010: 131-136.

10. Preliminary Study on Reinstatement Labelling for WAFsCarlo Taticchi — November 19, 2019 WEIGHTED DEFENCE4 10 4Stefano Bistarelli, Fabio Rossi, Francesco Santini. A Collective Defence Against Grouped Attacks for Weighted Abstract Argumentation Frameworks. FLAIRS Conference 2016: 638-643. ▸ {a, b, d} and {a, b, e} are the w-complete extensions ▸ {a, b, d, e} is not w-complete (2+3 < 4+4)

11. Preliminary Study on Reinstatement Labelling for WAFsCarlo Taticchi — November 19, 2019 LABELLING-BASED SEMANTICS FOR WAFS 11 ▸ The w-conﬂict-free and the conﬂict-free labelling coincides a is IN a is not attacked by any IN a is OUT a is attacked by some IN CFW-CF

12. Preliminary Study on Reinstatement Labelling for WAFsCarlo Taticchi — November 19, 2019 LABELLING-BASED SEMANTICS FOR WAFS 12 a is IN a is OUT ⟹ a− = a− |OUT ∧ ∀b ∈ a− . wb−|IN ≤ 𝕊 wb+|IN ⟹ wa−|IN < 𝕊 ⊤ W-ADM

13. Preliminary Study on Reinstatement Labelling for WAFsCarlo Taticchi — November 19, 2019 LABELLING-BASED SEMANTICS FOR WAFS 13 a is IN a is OUT ⟹ a− = a− |OUT ∧ ∀b ∈ a− . wb−|IN ≤ 𝕊 wb+|IN ⟹ wa−|IN < 𝕊 ⊤ W-ADM

14. Preliminary Study on Reinstatement Labelling for WAFsCarlo Taticchi — November 19, 2019 LABELLING-BASED SEMANTICS FOR WAFS 14 W-COM a is IN a is OUT ⟺ a− = a− |OUT ∧ ∀b ∈ a− . wb−|IN∪{a} ≤ 𝕊 wb+|IN∪{a} ⟺ wa−|IN < 𝕊 ⊤

15. ConArg www.dmi.unipg.it/conarg

16. Preliminary Study on Reinstatement Labelling for WAFsCarlo Taticchi — November 19, 2019 CONCLUSION 16 ▸ Tool available at www.dmi.unipg.it/conarg ▸ Preliminary work on Labelling Semantics for WAFs • Conﬂict-free • Admissible • Complete • Preferred • Stable

17. Preliminary Study on Reinstatement Labelling for WAFsCarlo Taticchi — November 19, 2019 NEXTCONCLUSION 17 ▸ Weighted Labelling for • (Quasi-)Strongly- Admissible • Grounded ▸ Tool available at www.dmi.unipg.it/conarg ▸ Preliminary work on Labelling Semantics for WAFs • Conﬂict-free • Admissible • Complete • Preferred • Stable

18. PRELIMINARY STUDY ON REINSTATEMENT LABELLING FOR WEIGHTED ARGUMENTATION FRAMEWORKS Stefano Bistarelli and Carlo Taticchi Thanks for your attention!

Preliminary Study on Reinstatement Labelling for Weighted Argumentation Frameworks

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (9)

Mehr von Carlo Taticchi

Mehr von Carlo Taticchi (13)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Preliminary Study on Reinstatement Labelling for Weighted Argumentation Frameworks