Quantitative Claim-Centric Reasoning in Logic-Based Argumentation

authored by: Markus Hecher, Yasir Mahmood, Arne Meier, Johannes Schmidt
Abstract: Argumentation is a well-established formalism for nonmonotonic reasoning with popular frameworks being Dung's abstract argumentation (AFs) or logic-based argumentation (Besnard-Hunter's framework). Structurally, a set of formulas forms support for a claim if it is consistent, subset-minimal, and implies the claim. Then, an argument comprises a support and a claim. We observe that the computational task (ARG) of asking for support of a claim in a knowledge base is “brave”, since many claims with a single support are accepted. As a result, ARG falls short when it comes to the question of confidence in a claim, or claim strength. In this paper, we propose a concept for measuring the (acceptance) strength of claims, based on counting supports for a claim. Further, we settle classical and structural complexity of counting arguments favoring a given claim in propositional knowledge bases (KBs). We introduce quantitative reasoning to measure the strength of claims in a KB and to determine the relevance strength of a formula for a claim.
Organisation(s): Institute of Theoretical Computer Science
Type: Conference contribution
Pages: 3404-3412
No. of pages: 9
Publication date: 2024
Publication status: Published
Peer reviewed: Yes
ASJC Scopus subject areas: Artificial Intelligence
Electronic version(s): https://www.ijcai.org/proceedings/2024/377 (Access: Open)

BibTeX

@inproceedings{4a8e113b30af457f98ae4c069f3b3bbd,
title = "Quantitative Claim-Centric Reasoning in Logic-Based Argumentation",
abstract = "Argumentation is a well-established formalism for nonmonotonic reasoning with popular frameworks being Dung's abstract argumentation (AFs) or logic-based argumentation (Besnard-Hunter's framework). Structurally, a set of formulas forms support for a claim if it is consistent, subset-minimal, and implies the claim. Then, an argument comprises a support and a claim. We observe that the computational task (ARG) of asking for support of a claim in a knowledge base is “brave”, since many claims with a single support are accepted. As a result, ARG falls short when it comes to the question of confidence in a claim, or claim strength. In this paper, we propose a concept for measuring the (acceptance) strength of claims, based on counting supports for a claim. Further, we settle classical and structural complexity of counting arguments favoring a given claim in propositional knowledge bases (KBs). We introduce quantitative reasoning to measure the strength of claims in a KB and to determine the relevance strength of a formula for a claim.",
author = "Markus Hecher and Yasir Mahmood and Arne Meier and Johannes Schmidt",
note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2024 International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence. All rights reserved.",
year = "2024",
language = "English",
series = "IJCAI International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence",
pages = "3404--3412",
editor = "Kate Larson",
booktitle = "Proceedings of the 33rd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2024",
}