Some problems with modelling preferences in abstract argumentation Henry Prakken Luxemburg 2 April...
-
Upload
rolf-allen -
Category
Documents
-
view
216 -
download
0
Transcript of Some problems with modelling preferences in abstract argumentation Henry Prakken Luxemburg 2 April...
![Page 1: Some problems with modelling preferences in abstract argumentation Henry Prakken Luxemburg 2 April 2012.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062515/56649ce45503460f949b07d5/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Some problems with modelling preferences in abstract argumentation
Henry PrakkenLuxemburg2 April 2012
![Page 2: Some problems with modelling preferences in abstract argumentation Henry Prakken Luxemburg 2 April 2012.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062515/56649ce45503460f949b07d5/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
2
Overview
The ASPIC+ framework for structured argumentation
Preference-based abstract argumentation frameworks (PAFs) Combination with ASPIC+
Abstract resolution semantics Combination with ASPIC+ (Joint work
with Sanjay Modgil)
![Page 3: Some problems with modelling preferences in abstract argumentation Henry Prakken Luxemburg 2 April 2012.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062515/56649ce45503460f949b07d5/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
3
ASPIC framework: overview
Argument structure: Trees where
Nodes are wff of a logical language L Links are applications of inference rules
Rs = Strict rules (1, ..., n ); or Rd= Defeasible rules (1, ..., n )
Reasoning starts from a knowledge base K L Defeat: attack on conclusion, premise or
inference, + preferences Argument acceptability based on Dung
(1995)
![Page 4: Some problems with modelling preferences in abstract argumentation Henry Prakken Luxemburg 2 April 2012.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062515/56649ce45503460f949b07d5/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
We should lower taxes
Lower taxes increase productivity
Increased productivity is good
![Page 5: Some problems with modelling preferences in abstract argumentation Henry Prakken Luxemburg 2 April 2012.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062515/56649ce45503460f949b07d5/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
We should lower taxes
Lower taxes increase productivity
Increased productivity is good
We should not lower taxes
Lower taxes increase inequality
Increased inequality is bad
![Page 6: Some problems with modelling preferences in abstract argumentation Henry Prakken Luxemburg 2 April 2012.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062515/56649ce45503460f949b07d5/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
We should lower taxes
Lower taxes increase productivity
Increased productivity is good
We should not lower taxes
Lower taxes increase inequality
Increased inequality is bad
Lower taxes do not increase productivity
USA lowered taxes but productivity decreased
![Page 7: Some problems with modelling preferences in abstract argumentation Henry Prakken Luxemburg 2 April 2012.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062515/56649ce45503460f949b07d5/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
We should lower taxes
Lower taxes increase productivity
Increased productivity is good
We should not lower taxes
Lower taxes increase inequality
Increased inequality is bad
Lower taxes do not increase productivity
Prof. P says that …
USA lowered taxes but productivity decreased
![Page 8: Some problems with modelling preferences in abstract argumentation Henry Prakken Luxemburg 2 April 2012.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062515/56649ce45503460f949b07d5/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
We should lower taxes
Lower taxes increase productivity
Increased productivity is good
We should not lower taxes
Lower taxes increase inequality
Increased inequality is bad
Lower taxes do not increase productivity
Prof. P says that …
Prof. P has political ambitions
People with political ambitions are not objective
Prof. P is not objective
USA lowered taxes but productivity decreased
![Page 9: Some problems with modelling preferences in abstract argumentation Henry Prakken Luxemburg 2 April 2012.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062515/56649ce45503460f949b07d5/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
We should lower taxes
Lower taxes increase productivity
Increased productivity is good
We should not lower taxes
Lower taxes increase inequality
Increased inequality is bad
Lower taxes do not increase productivity
Prof. P says that …
Prof. P has political ambitions
People with political ambitions are not objective
Prof. P is not objective
USA lowered taxes but productivity decreased
![Page 10: Some problems with modelling preferences in abstract argumentation Henry Prakken Luxemburg 2 April 2012.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062515/56649ce45503460f949b07d5/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
We should lower taxes
Lower taxes increase productivity
Increased productivity is good
We should not lower taxes
Lower taxes increase inequality
Increased inequality is bad
Lower taxes do not increase productivity
Prof. P says that …
Prof. P has political ambitions
People with political ambitions are not objective
Prof. P is not objective
Increased inequality is good
Increased inequality stimulates competition
Competition is good
USA lowered taxes but productivity decreased
![Page 11: Some problems with modelling preferences in abstract argumentation Henry Prakken Luxemburg 2 April 2012.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062515/56649ce45503460f949b07d5/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
11
Argumentation systems An argumentation system is a tuple AS = (L,
-,R, ≤) where: L is a logical language - is a contrariness function from L to 2L R = Rs Rd is a set of strict and defeasible inference
rules ≤ is a partial preorder on Rd
S L is (directly) consistent iff for no , L it holds that -()
![Page 12: Some problems with modelling preferences in abstract argumentation Henry Prakken Luxemburg 2 April 2012.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062515/56649ce45503460f949b07d5/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
12
Knowledge bases A knowledge base in AS = (L, -,R,≤’) is a
pair (K, ≤’) where K L and K is a partition Kn Kp Ka Ki where: Kn = necessary premises Kp = ordinary premises Ka = assumptions Ki = issues (ignored below)
Moreover, ≤’ is a partial preorder on K/Kn.
![Page 13: Some problems with modelling preferences in abstract argumentation Henry Prakken Luxemburg 2 April 2012.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062515/56649ce45503460f949b07d5/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
13
Structure of arguments
An argument A on the basis of (K,≤’) in (L, -,R,≤) is:
if K with Prem(A) = {}, Conc(A) = , Sub(A) = {}
A1, ..., An / if there is a strict/defeasible inference rule Conc(A1), ..., Conc(An) /
Prem(A) = Prem(A1) ... Prem(An) Conc(A) = Sub(A) = Sub(A1) ... Sub(An) {A}
![Page 14: Some problems with modelling preferences in abstract argumentation Henry Prakken Luxemburg 2 April 2012.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062515/56649ce45503460f949b07d5/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
14
Rs: Rd:
p,q s p tu,v w s,r,t v
Kn = {q} Kp = {p,u} Ka = {r}
w
v u
s r t
p q p
p
pnp
a
u, v w Rs
p, q s Rs
s,r,t v Rd
p t Rd
A1 = p A5 = A1 t
A2 = q A6 = A1,A2 s
A3 = r A7 = A5,A3,A6 v
A4 = u A8 = A7,A4 w
![Page 15: Some problems with modelling preferences in abstract argumentation Henry Prakken Luxemburg 2 April 2012.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062515/56649ce45503460f949b07d5/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
15
Argumentation theories An argumentation theory is a triple AT =
(AS,KB,≤a) where: AS is an argumentation system KB is a knowledge base in AS ≤a is an argument ordering on ArgsAT where
ArgsAT = {A | A is an argument on the basis of KB in AS}
![Page 16: Some problems with modelling preferences in abstract argumentation Henry Prakken Luxemburg 2 April 2012.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062515/56649ce45503460f949b07d5/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
16
Attack and defeat(with - symmetric and Ka =
) A undermines B (on ) if
Conc(A) = - for some Prem(B )/ Kn; A rebuts B (on B’ ) if
Conc(A) = -Conc(B’ ) for some B’ Sub(B ) with a defeasible top rule
A undercuts B (on B’ ) if Conc(A) = -r ’for some B’ Sub(B ) with defeasible top
rule r
A defeats B iff for some B’ A undermines B on and not A <a ; or A rebuts B on B’ and not A <a B’ ; or A undercuts B on B’
Naming convention implicit
Direct vs. subargument attack/defeatPreference-dependent vs. preference-independent attacks
![Page 17: Some problems with modelling preferences in abstract argumentation Henry Prakken Luxemburg 2 April 2012.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062515/56649ce45503460f949b07d5/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
17
Rs: Rd:
p,q s p tu,v w s,r,t v
w
v u
s r t
p q p
p
pnp
a
A1 = p A5 = A1 t
A2 = q A6 = A1,A2 s
A3 = r A7 = A5,A3,A6 v
A4 = u A8 = A7,A4 w
Kn = {q} Kp = {p,u} Ka = {r}
![Page 18: Some problems with modelling preferences in abstract argumentation Henry Prakken Luxemburg 2 April 2012.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062515/56649ce45503460f949b07d5/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
18
Argument acceptability Dung-style semantics applied to
(ArgsAT , defeatAT)
![Page 19: Some problems with modelling preferences in abstract argumentation Henry Prakken Luxemburg 2 April 2012.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062515/56649ce45503460f949b07d5/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
19
We should lower taxes
Lower taxes increase productivity
Increased productivity is good
We should not lower taxes
Lower taxes increase inequality
Increased inequality is bad
Lower taxes do not increase productivity
Prof. P says that …
Prof. P has political ambitions
People with political ambitions are not objective
Prof. P is not objective
Increased inequality is good
Increased inequality stimulates competition
Competition is good
USA lowered taxes but productivity decreased
![Page 20: Some problems with modelling preferences in abstract argumentation Henry Prakken Luxemburg 2 April 2012.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062515/56649ce45503460f949b07d5/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
A B
C D E
![Page 21: Some problems with modelling preferences in abstract argumentation Henry Prakken Luxemburg 2 April 2012.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062515/56649ce45503460f949b07d5/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
A B
C D E
A’
![Page 22: Some problems with modelling preferences in abstract argumentation Henry Prakken Luxemburg 2 April 2012.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062515/56649ce45503460f949b07d5/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
A B
C D E
A’
P1 P2 P3 P4
P8 P9P7P5 P6
![Page 23: Some problems with modelling preferences in abstract argumentation Henry Prakken Luxemburg 2 April 2012.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062515/56649ce45503460f949b07d5/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Rationality postulates(Caminada & Amgoud 2007)
Let E be any complete extension, CONC(E) = {| = Conc(A) for some A E }:
1. If A E and B Sub(A) then B E2. Conc(E) is
closed under RS; consistent.
![Page 24: Some problems with modelling preferences in abstract argumentation Henry Prakken Luxemburg 2 April 2012.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062515/56649ce45503460f949b07d5/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Rationality postulatesfor ASPIC+
Closure under subarguments always satisfied
Strict closure and consistency: without preferences satisfied if
Rs closed under transposition or AS closed under contraposition
Strict closure of Kn is consistent AT is `well-formed’
with preferences satisfied if in addition a is ‘reasonable’
![Page 25: Some problems with modelling preferences in abstract argumentation Henry Prakken Luxemburg 2 April 2012.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062515/56649ce45503460f949b07d5/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Relation with other work Assumption-based argumentation (Dung, Kowalski,
Toni ...) is special case with Only assumption-type premises Only strict inference rules No preferences
Variants of classical argumentation with undermining (Amgoud & Cayrol, Besnard & Hunter) are special case with
Only ordinary premises Only strict inference rules (all valid propositional or first-order
inferences) - = ¬ Arguments must have classically consistent premises
Carneades (Gordon et al.) is a special case If Rs corresponds to a Tarskian abstract logic (cf. Amgoud &
Besnard), then they are well-behaved wrt the rationality postulates
![Page 26: Some problems with modelling preferences in abstract argumentation Henry Prakken Luxemburg 2 April 2012.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062515/56649ce45503460f949b07d5/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Preference-based abstract argumentation
PAF = (Args,attack, ≤) ≤ an argument ordering
A defeats B iff A attacks B and not A < B
Argument acceptability: Dung-style semantics applied to (Args, defeat)
26
![Page 27: Some problems with modelling preferences in abstract argumentation Henry Prakken Luxemburg 2 April 2012.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062515/56649ce45503460f949b07d5/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
What if ASPIC+ semantics is defined by PAFs?
No distinction possible between preference-dependent and preference-independent attacks
Possibly violations of postulates of subargument closure and consistency
27
![Page 28: Some problems with modelling preferences in abstract argumentation Henry Prakken Luxemburg 2 April 2012.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062515/56649ce45503460f949b07d5/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Counterexample to subargument closure
28
Rd:r1: p rr2: q -rr3: -r sK: p,q:r2 < r1, r1 < r3a= last link
A1 = p A2 = A1 r
B1 = q B2 = B1 -r B3 = B2 s
attack PAF-defeat ASPIC+-defeat
![Page 29: Some problems with modelling preferences in abstract argumentation Henry Prakken Luxemburg 2 April 2012.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062515/56649ce45503460f949b07d5/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Abstract resolution semantics(Modgil 2006, Baroni et al. 2008-
2011)
AF2 = (Args,attack2) is a resolution of AF1 = (Args,attack1) iff attack2 attack1 If (A,B) attack1, attack2, then
(B,A) attack1, attack2 So partial resolutions turn one or
more symmetric attacks into asymmetric ones
29
![Page 30: Some problems with modelling preferences in abstract argumentation Henry Prakken Luxemburg 2 April 2012.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062515/56649ce45503460f949b07d5/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Possible properties of abstract resolution
semantics NB: A is sceptically s-justified wrt AF iff A is in all
s-extensions of AF
L2R-sc: If A is sceptically justified wrt AF, then A is sceptically justified wrt all resolutions of AF
Holds for grounded but not for preferred R2L-sc: If A is sceptically justified wrt all
resolutions of AF, then A is sceptically justified wrt AF
Holds for preferred but not for grounded
30
![Page 31: Some problems with modelling preferences in abstract argumentation Henry Prakken Luxemburg 2 April 2012.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062515/56649ce45503460f949b07d5/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Counterexample R2L-sc for grounded semantics
A B
C
D
A B
C
D
A B
C
D
![Page 32: Some problems with modelling preferences in abstract argumentation Henry Prakken Luxemburg 2 April 2012.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062515/56649ce45503460f949b07d5/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Resolutions in ASPIC+ (Modgil & Prakken 2012)
Let ≤ and ≤’ be two partial preorders: ≤’ extends ≤ iff ≤ ≤’; and If x < y then x <’ y
AT2 = (AS,KB, ≤a2) is a resolution of AT1 = (AS,KB, ≤a1) iff ≤a2 extends ≤a1; and defeatAT2 defeatAT1
32
![Page 33: Some problems with modelling preferences in abstract argumentation Henry Prakken Luxemburg 2 April 2012.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062515/56649ce45503460f949b07d5/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Deviations from abstract resolution semantics
Some asymmetric attacks can be resolved
Some symmetric attacks cannot be resolved Preference-independent attacks A ≈a1 B Preferences may imply other
preferences
33
r1: -r2r2: -r1
![Page 34: Some problems with modelling preferences in abstract argumentation Henry Prakken Luxemburg 2 April 2012.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062515/56649ce45503460f949b07d5/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Results on resolution semantics for ASPIC+
L2R-sc holds for grounded but not for preferred
R2L-sc holds for neither grounded nor preferred While it holds for preferred in abstract
resolution semantics Special case: R2L-sc holds for preferred
for classical instantiations with the KB-ordering a total preorder.
34
![Page 35: Some problems with modelling preferences in abstract argumentation Henry Prakken Luxemburg 2 April 2012.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062515/56649ce45503460f949b07d5/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
Methodological message Abstract argumentation
approaches are dangerous: Only significant when combined with
accounts of the structure of arguments
But often implicitly make assumptions that exclude reasonable instantiations
While these assumptions often cannot be expressed at the abstract level
35