1,721,057 research outputs found
An introduction to optimal stable marriage problems and argumentation frameworks
No full textIn the Stable Marriage (SM) problem, given two sets of individuals partitioned into men and women, a matching is stable when there does not exist any matching man-woman by which both man and woman would be individually better off than they are with the person to which they are currently matched. In 1995, P.M. Dung modelled stable matchings as stable extensions in Abstract Argumentation Frameworks. In this paper we elaborate on the original formulation by using Weighted Abstract Argumentation to also represent optimality criteria in Optimal SM problems, where some matchings are better than others: criteria may consider only the preference of either men, or women, or a more balanced view obtained by differently combining the preferences of both of them
A concurrent language for argumentation
No full textWhile 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
No full textWhile 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
Introducing a Tool for Concurrent Argumentation
No full textAgent-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
A Labelling Semantics and Strong Admissibility for Weighted Argumentation Frameworks
No full textArgumentation Theory provides tools for both modelling and reasoning with controversial information and is a methodology that is often used as a way to give explanations to results provided using machine learning techniques. In this context, labelling-based semantics for Abstract Argumentation Frameworks (AFs) allow for establishing the acceptability of sets of arguments, dividing them into three partitions: in, out and undecidable (instead of classical Dung acceptable and not acceptable sets). This kind of semantics have been studied only for classical AFs, while the more powerful weighted and preference-based frameworks have not been studied yet. In this paper, we define a novel labelling semantics for Weighted Argumentation Frameworks (WAFs), extending and generalizing the crisp one, and we provide some insights towards a definition of strong admissibility for WAFs
Power index-based semantics for ranking arguments in abstract argumentation frameworks
No full textRanking-based semantics for Abstract Argumentation Frameworks represent a well-established concept used for sorting a group of arguments from the most to the least acceptable. This paper describes a ranking-based semantics that makes use of power indexes such as the Shapley Value and the Banzhaf Power Index. This power index-based semantics is parametric to a chosen Dung semantics and inherits the properties of the index that is used for evaluating the arguments. We highlight the characteristics of the rankings obtained through different evaluation functions and we verify which of the properties from the literature are satisfied. Finally, we study the relation between the (skeptical/credulous) acceptability of an argument and its position in the ranking, thus designing new properties
A Unifying Four-State Labelling Semantics for Bridging Abstract Argumentation Frameworks and Belief Revision
No full textIn 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
Towards an Implementation of a Concurrent Language for Argumentation
No full textWhile 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
BERT-based questions answering on close domains: Preliminary Report
No full textNatural language processing has seen a revolution in recent years thanks to Large Language Models (LLMs), which are based on generative technologies and set new standards for the field’s main tasks (sentiment analysis, text classification, question answering, etc.). The main issue today with current LLMs are the hallucinations, which cause incomplete control over the model’s entire output and can lead to disastrous outcomes in critical contexts. This makes it impractical to use LLMs in a lot of contexts where a certain level of security and safety is required. We aim to develop a model that can’t hallucinate and reduce false replies, that can be more efficient in terms of time compared to various generative models, and that provides the possibility to explain and identify errors (if any). This is done by avoiding the use of LLMs based on the generation of text and instead using a model that selects the most relevant part of the text and, with an adequate reformulation of the sentence, provides the user with the required pieces of information. We use hotel policies and rules as a case study, but the proposed approach could be applied to all cases that involve questions about a given text. It is important to notice that this work does not require any type of fine-tuning or training on the particular data, making generalisations to other fields and contexts easy
A labelling semantics for weighted argumentation frameworks
No full textArgumentation Theory provides tools for both modelling and reasoning with controversial information and is a methodology that is go- ing to be proposed as a way to give explanations to results provided using machine learning techniques. In this context, labelling-based semantics for Abstract Argumentation Frameworks (AFs) allow for establishing the acceptability of sets of arguments, dividing them into three partitions: Ac- ceptable, rejected and undecidable (instead of classical Dung two sets IN and OUT partitions). This kind of semantics have been studied only for classical AFs, whilst the more powerful weighted and preference-based framework has been not studied yet. In this paper, we define a novel labelling semantics for Weighted Argumentation Frameworks, extending and generalising the crisp one
- …
