A Bayesian approach to forward and inverse abstract argumentation problems

References

• Amgoud, L. (2009). Repairing preference-based argumentation frameworks. Proceedings of the 21st international joint conference on artificial intelligence (pp. 665–670). Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Aster, R. C., Borchers, B., & Thurber, C. (2004). Parameter estimation and inverse problem. Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bar-Haim, R., Bhattacharya, I., Dinuzzo, F., Saha, A., & Slonim, N. (2017). Stance classification of context-dependent claims. Proceedings of the 15th conference of the European chapter of the association for computational linguistics (Vol. 1, pp. 251–261). Association for Computational Linguistics.
   Google Scholar
• Bar-Haim, R., Edelstein, L., Jochim, C., & Slonim, N. (2017). Improving claim stance classification with lexical knowledge expansion and context utilization. Proceedings of the 4th workshop on argument mining (pp. 32–38). Association for Computational Linguistics.
   Google Scholar
• Baroni, P., Giacomin, M., & Guida, G. (2005). Scc-recursiveness: a general schema for argumentation semantics. Artificial Intelligence, 168(1–2), 162–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2005.05.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bench-Capon, T. J. M. (2002). Value-based argumentation frameworks. In Proceedings of the 9th international workshop on non-monotonic reasoning (pp. 443–454).
   Google Scholar
• Bench-Capon, T. J. M., & Dunne, P. E. (2007). Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Artificial Intelligence, 171(10–15), 619–641. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2007.05.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bex, F., & Renooij, S. (2016). From arguments to constraints on a Bayesian network. computational models of argument. Proceedings of the 6th international conference on computational models of argument (pp. 95–106). IOS Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bishop, C. M. (2006). Pattern recognition and machine learning. Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Boltužić, F., & Šnajder, J. (2014). Back up your stance: Recognizing arguments in online discussions. Proceedings of the 1st workshop on argumentation mining (pp. 49–58). Association for Computational Linguistics.
   Google Scholar
• Bowman, S. R., Angeli, G., Potts, C., & Manning, C. D. (2015). A large annotated corpus for learning natural language inference. In arXiv:1508.05326 [cs.CL].
   Google Scholar
• Cabrio, E., & Villata, S. (2013). A natural language bipolar argumentation approach to support users in online debate interactions. Argumentation & Computation, 4(3), 209–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/19462166.2013.862303
   Google Scholar
• Caminada, M. (2006). Semi-stable semantics. Proceedings of the 1st international conference on computational models of argument (pp. 121–130). IOS Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cayrol, C., & Lagasquie-Schiex, M. C. (2005). On the acceptability of arguments in bipolar argumentation frameworks. Proceedings of the 8th European conference on symbolic and quantitative approaches to reasoning with uncertainty (pp. 378–389). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Coste-Marquis, S., Devred, C., & Marquis, P. (2005). Prudent semantics for argumentation frameworks. Proceedings of the 17th international conference on tools with artificial intelligence (pp. 568–572). IEEE Computer Society.
   Google Scholar
• Dung, P. M. (1995). On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming, and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence, 77(2), 321–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/0004-3702(94)00041-X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dung, P. M., Mancarella, P., & Toni, F. (2006). A dialectic procedure for sceptical, assumption-based argumentation. Proceedings of the 1st international conference on computational models of argument (pp. 145–156). IOS Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dunne, P. E., Dvořák, W., Linsbichler, T., & Woltran, S. (2015). Characteristics of multiple viewpoints in abstract argumentation. Artificial Intelligence, 228(C), 153–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2015.07.006.
   Google Scholar
• Geman, S., & Geman, D. (1984). Stochastic relaxation, gibbs distributions, and the bayesian restoration of images. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 6(1), 721–741. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPAMI.1984.4767596
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Grabmair, M., Gordon, T. F., & Walton, D. (2010). Probabilistic semantics for the Carneades argument model using Bayesian networks. Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on computational models of argument (pp. 255–266). IOS Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hunter, A. (2020). Generating instantiated argument graphs from probabilistic information. Proceedings of the 24th European conference on artificial intelligence (pp. 769–776). IOS Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kido, H. (2018). Bayesian model selection in statistical construction of justification. Proceedings of the 16th international conference on knowledge representation and reasoning (pp. 647–648). AAAI Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kido, H., & Liao, B. (2019). A Bayesian approach to direct and inverse abstract argumentation problems. In arXiv:1909.04319 [cs.AI].
   Google Scholar
• Kido, H., & Okamoto, K. (2017). A Bayesian approach to argument-based reasoning for attack estimation. Proceedings of the 26th international joint conference on artificial intelligence (pp. 249–255). AAAI Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lawrence, J., & Reed, C. (2016). Argument mining using argumentation scheme structures. Proceedings of the 6th international conference on computational models of argument (pp. 379–390). IOS Press.
   Google Scholar
• Leite, J., & Martins, J. (2011). Social abstract argumentation. Proceedings of the 22nd international joint conference on artificial intelligence (pp. 2287–2292). AAAI Press.
   Google Scholar
• Levesque, H. J., Davis, E., & Morgenstern, L. (2012). The Winograd schema challenge. Proceedings of the 13th international conference on principles of knowledge representation and reasoning (pp. 552–561). AAAI Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lippi, M., & Torroni, P. (2015). Context-independent claim detection for argument mining. Proceedings of the twenty-fourth international joint conference on artificial intelligence (pp. 185–191). AAAI Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lippi, M., & Torroni, P. (2016). Argumentation mining: State of the art and emerging trends. ACM Transactions on Internet Technology, 16(2), 10:1–10:25. https://doi.org/10.1145/2850417
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacCartney, B., & Manning, C. D. (2007). Natural logic for textual inference. Proceedings of the workshop on textual entailment and paraphrasing (pp. 193–200). Association for Computational Linguistics.
   Google Scholar
• Mayer, T., Cabrio, E., Lippi, M., Torroni, P., & Villata, S. (2018). Proceedings of the 7th international conference on computational models of argument (pp. 137–148). IOS Press.
   Google Scholar
• Modgil, S., & Luck, M. (2009). Argumentation based resolution of conflicts between desires and normative goals. Proceedings of the 5th international workshop on argumentation in multi-agent systems (pp. 19–36). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Nielsen, S. H., & Parsons, S. (2007). An application of formal argumentation: Fusing bayesian networks in multi-agent systems. Artificial Intelligence, 171(10–15), 754–775. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2007.04.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nir Oren, B. Y., Vesic, S., & Baptista, M. (2022). Inverse problems for gradual semantics. Proceedings of the 31st international joint conference on artificial intelligence (pp. 2719–2725). AAAI Press.
   Google Scholar
• Niskanen, A., Wallner, J. P., & Järvisalo, M. (2016). Synthesizing argumentation frameworks from examples. Proceedings of the 22nd European conference on artificial intelligence (pp. 551–559). IOS Press.
   Google Scholar
• Niskanen, A., Wallner, J. P., & Järvisalo, M. (2018). Extension enforcement under grounded semantics in abstract argumentation. Proceedings of the 16th international conference on knowledge representation and reasoning (pp. 178–183). AAAI Press.
   Google Scholar
• Niskanen, A., Wallner, J. P., & Järvisalo, M. (2019). Synthesizing argumentation frameworks from examples. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 66, 503–554. https://doi.org/10.1613/jair.1.11758
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Palau, R. M., & Moens, M. F. (2009). Argumentation mining: The detection, classification and structure of arguments in text. Proceedings of the 12th international conference on artificial intelligence and law (pp. 98–107). Association for Computing Machinery.
   Google Scholar
• Prakken, H., & Vreeswijk, G. (2001). Logics for defeasible argumentation (2nd ed., Vol. 4, pp. 219–318). Handbook of philosophical logic. Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Riveret, R. (2020). On searching explanatory argumentation graphs. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics, 30(2), 123–192. https://doi.org/10.1080/11663081.2020.1766248
   Google Scholar
• Riveret, R., & Governatori, G. (2016). On learning attacks in probabilistic abstract argumentation. Proceedings of the 15th international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (pp. 653–661). International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems.
   Google Scholar
• Saha, S., & Sen, S. (2004). A Bayes net approach to argumentation. Proceedings of the 19th national conference on artificial intelligence (pp. 966–967). AAAI Press.
   Google Scholar
• Saint-Dizier, P. (2018). A knowledge-based approach to warrant induction. Proceedings of the 7th international conference on computational models of argument (pp. 289–300). IOS Press.
   Google Scholar
• Silva, V. S., Freitas, A., & Handschuh, S. (2018). Recognizing and justifying text entailment through distributional navigation on definition graphs. Proceedings of the 22nd AAAI conference on artificial intelligence. AAAI Press.
   Google Scholar
• SYNCLON (2013). Synclon β3. Retrieved May, 2015, from http://synclon3.com/
   Google Scholar
• Timmer, S. T., Meyer, J.-J. C., Prakken, H., Renooij, S., & Verheij, B. (2015). Explaining Bayesian networks using argumentation. Proceedings of the 13th European conference on symbolic and quantitative approaches to reasoning and uncertainty (pp. 83–92). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Toledo-Ronen, O., Bar-Haim, R., & Slonim, N. (2016). Expert stance graphs for computational argumentation. Proceedings of the 3rd workshop on argument mining (pp. 119–123). Association for Computational Linguistics.
   Google Scholar
• Uspensky, J. (1937). Introduction to mathematical probability. NcGraw-Hill Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Verheij, B. (1996). Two approaches to dialectical argumentation: Admissible sets and argumentation stages. Proceedings of the 8th Dutch conference on artificial intelligence (pp. 357–368). Utrecht University.
   Google Scholar
• Vreeswijk, G. A. (2005). Argumentation in Bayesian belief networks. Proceedings of the 2nd international workshop on argumentation in multi-agent systems (pp. 111–129). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Zhao, K., Huang, L., & Ma, M. (2017). Textual entailment with structured attentions and composition. In arXiv:1701.01126 [cs.CL].
   Google Scholar