Author name cluster

AnneMarie Borg

Possible papers associated with this exact author name in Arrow. This page groups case-insensitive exact name matches and is not a full identity disambiguation profile.

13 papers

2 author rows

AIJ Journal 2023 Journal Article

A postulate-driven study of logical argumentation

Ofer Arieli
Annemarie Borg
Christian Straßer

Logical argumentation is a well-known approach to modeling non-monotonic reasoning with conflicting information. In this paper we provide a comprehensive postulate-based study of properties of logical argumentation frameworks and a full characterization of their semantics and inference relations. In this way we identify well-behaved formal argumentative models of drawing logically justified inferences from a given set of possibly conflicting defeasible, as well as strict assumptions. Given some desiderata in terms of rationality postulates, we consider the conditions that an argumentation framework should fulfill for the desiderata to hold. One purpose of this approach is to assist designers to “plug-in” pre-defined formalisms according to actual needs. To this end, we present a classification of argumentation frameworks relative to the types of attacks they implement. In turn, for each class we determine which desiderata are satisfied. Our study is highly abstract, supposing only a minimal set of requirements on the considered underlying deductive systems, and in this way covering a broad range of formalisms, including classical, intuitionistic and modal logics.

Details DOI

KR Conference 2023 Conference Paper

Argumentative Reasoning in ASPIC+ under Incomplete Information

Daphne Odekerken
Tuomo Lehtonen
Annemarie Borg
Johannes P. Wallner
Matti Järvisalo

Reasoning under incomplete information is an important research direction in AI argumentation. Most computational advances in this direction have so-far focused on abstract argumentation frameworks. Development of computational approaches to reasoning under incomplete information in structured formalisms remains to-date to a large extent a challenge. We address this challenge by studying the so-called stability and relevance problems---with the aim of analyzing aspects of resilience of acceptance statuses in light of new information---in the central structured formalism of ASPIC+. Focusing on the case of the grounded semantics and an ASPIC+ fragment motivated through application scenarios, we develop exact ASP-based algorithms for stability and relevance in incomplete ASPIC+ theories, and pinpoint the complexity of reasoning about stability (coNP-complete) and relevance (Sigma_2^P-complete), further justifying our ASP-based approaches. Empirically, the algorithms exhibit promising scalability, outperforming even a recent inexact approach to stability, with our ASP-based iterative approach being the first algorithm proposed for reasoning about relevance in ASPIC+.

PDF Details DOI

NMR Workshop 2022 Conference Paper

Abductive Reasoning with Sequent-Based Argumentation

Ofer Arieli
AnneMarie Borg
Matthis Hesse
Christian Straßer

We show that logic-based argumentation, and in particular sequent-based frameworks, is a robust argumentative setting for abductive reasoning and explainable artificial intelligence.

Details

AAMAS Conference 2022 Conference Paper

Contrastive Explanations for Argumentation-Based Conclusions

Annemarie Borg
Floris Bex

In this paper we discuss contrastive explanations for formal argumentation – the question why one argument (the fact) can be accepted, whilst another argument (the foil) cannot be accepted. We show under which conditions contrastive explanations in abstract argumentation are meaningful, and how argumentation allows us to make implicit foils explicit.

PDF

IS Journal 2021 Journal Article

A Basic Framework for Explanations in Argumentation

Annemarie Borg
Floris Bex

We discuss explanations for formal (abstract and structured) argumentation—the question of whether and why a certain argument or claim can be accepted (or not) under various extension-based semantics. We introduce a flexible framework, which can act as the basis for many different types of explanations. For example, we can have simple or comprehensive explanations in terms of arguments for or against a claim, arguments that (indirectly) defend a claim, the evidence (knowledge base) that supports or is incompatible with a claim, and so on. We show how different types of explanations can be captured in our basic framework, discuss a real-life application and formally compare our framework to existing work.

Details DOI

KR Conference 2021 Conference Paper

Characterizations and Classifications of Argumentative Entailments

Ofer Arieli
Annemarie Borg
Christian Straßer

In this paper we provide a detailed analysis of the inference process induced by logical argumentation frameworks. The frameworks may be defined with respect to any propositional language and logic, different arguments that represent deductions in the logic, various support-based attack relations between arguments, and all the complete Dung-style semantics for the frameworks. We show that, ultimately, for characterizing the inference process with respect to a given framework, extension-based semantics may be divided into two types: single-extension and multiple-extension, which induce respective kinds of entailment relations. These entailments are further classified by the way they tolerate new information (nonmonotonicity-related properties) and maintain conflicts among arguments (inconsistency-related properties).

PDF Details DOI

KR Conference 2021 Conference Paper

Enforcing Sets of Formulas in Structured Argumentation

Annemarie Borg
Floris Bex

Enforcement, adjusting an argumentation framework such that a certain set of arguments becomes acceptable, is an important research topic within the study of dynamic argumentation, but one that has been little studied for structured argumentation. In this paper we study enforcement in a general structured argumentation setting. In particular, we study conditions on the argumentation setting and the knowledge base that ensure (or prevent) the acceptability of sets of formulas for structured argumentation frameworks.

PDF Details DOI

FLAP Journal 2021 Journal Article

Logic-Based Approaches to Formal Argumentation.

Ofer Arieli
Annemarie Borg
Jesse Heyninck
Christian Straßer

We study the logical foundations of Dung-style argumentation frameworks. Logicbased methods in the context of argumentation theory are described from two perspectives: (a) a survey of logic-based instantiations of argumentation frameworks, their properties and relations, and (b) a review of logical methods for the study of argumentation dynamics. In this chapter we restrict ourselves to Tarskian logics, based on (propositional) languages and corresponding (constructive) semantics or syntactic rule-based systems.

Details

FLAP Journal 2020 Journal Article

Assumptive Sequent-Based Argumentation.

Annemarie Borg

In many expert and everyday reasoning contexts it is very useful to reason on the basis of defeasible assumptions. For instance, if the information at hand is incomplete we often use plausible assumptions, or if the information is conflicting we interpret it as consistently as possible. In this paper sequentbased argumentation, a form of logical argumentation in which arguments are represented by a sequent, is extended to incorporate defeasible assumptions. The resulting assumptive framework is general, in that several other approaches to reasoning with assumptions from the literature can adequately be represented in it. Moreover, assumptive sequent-based argumentation has many desirable properties. It will be shown that assumptive sequent-based argumentation can easily be extended to a prioritized setting, it satisfies rationality postulates and reasoning with maximally consistent subsets can be represented in it.

Details

AAMAS Conference 2018 Conference Paper

Hypersequential Argumentation Frameworks: An Instantiation in the Modal Logic S5

Annemarie Borg
Ofer Arieli

In this paper we introduce hypersequent-based frameworks for the modeling of defeasible reasoning by means of logic-based argumentation. These frameworks are an extension of sequent-based argumentation frameworks, in which arguments are represented not only by sequents, but by more general expressions, called hypersequents. This generalization allows to incorporate, as the deductivebase of our formalism, some well-studied logics like the modal logic S5, the relevant logic RM, and Gödel–Dummett logic LC, to which no cut-free sequent calculi are known. In this paper we take S5 as the core logic and show that the hypersequent-based argumentation frameworks that are obtained in this case yield a robust defeasible variant of S5 with several desirable properties.

PDF

AAMAS Conference 2018 Conference Paper

Prioritized Sequent-Based Argumentation

Ofer Arieli
Annemarie Borg
Christian Stra�er

In this paper we integrate priorities in sequent-based argumentation. The former is a useful and extensively investigated tool in the context of non-monotonic reasoning, and the latter is a modular and general way of handling logical argumentation. Their combination offers a platform for representing and reasoning with maximally consistent subsets of prioritized knowledge bases. Moreover, many frameworks of the resulting formalisms satisfy common rationality postulates and other desirable properties, like conflict preservation.

PDF

IJCAI Conference 2018 Conference Paper

Relevance in Structured Argumentation

Annemarie Borg
Christian Straßer

We study properties related to relevance in non-monotonic consequence relations obtained by systems of structured argumentation. Relevance desiderata concern the robustness of a consequence relation under the addition of irrelevant information. For an account of what (ir)relevance amounts to we use syntactic and semantic considerations. Syntactic criteria have been proposed in the domain of relevance logic and were recently used in argumentation theory under the names of non-interference and crash-resistance. The basic idea is that the conclusions of a given argumentative theory should be robust under adding information that shares no propositional variables with the original database. Some semantic relevance criteria are known from non-monotonic logic. For instance, cautious monotony states that if we obtain certain conclusions from an argumentation theory, we may expect to still obtain the same conclusions if we add some of them to the given database. In this paper we investigate properties of structured argumentation systems that warrant relevance desiderata.

PDF Details

LORI Conference 2017 Conference Paper

Examining Network Effects in an Argumentative Agent-Based Model of Scientific Inquiry

AnneMarie Borg
Daniel Frey
Dunja Seselja
Christian Straßer

Abstract In this paper we present an agent-based model (ABM) of scientific inquiry aimed at investigating how different social networks impact the efficiency of scientists in acquiring knowledge. The model is an improved variant of the ABM introduced in [ 3 ], which is based on abstract argumentation frameworks. The current model employs a more refined notion of social networks and a more realistic representation of knowledge acquisition than the previous variant. Moreover, it includes two criteria of success: a monist and a pluralist one, reflecting different desiderata of scientific inquiry. Our findings suggest that, given a reasonable ratio between research time and time spent on communication, increasing the degree of connectedness of the social network tends to improve the efficiency of scientists.

Details