Computing argumentative explanations in bipolar argumentation frameworks
The process of arguing is also the process of justifying and explaining. Transparent reasoning process endows argumentation good explainability. Recently, more research efforts have been devoted to realizing the explanatory power of argumentation in unipolar argumentation frameworks. In addition to...
Saved in:
Main Authors: | , , , , |
---|---|
Other Authors: | |
Format: | Conference or Workshop Item |
Language: | English |
Published: |
2019
|
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | https://hdl.handle.net/10356/103315 http://hdl.handle.net/10220/49774 |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
Institution: | Nanyang Technological University |
Language: | English |
id |
sg-ntu-dr.10356-103315 |
---|---|
record_format |
dspace |
spelling |
sg-ntu-dr.10356-1033152020-11-01T04:43:51Z Computing argumentative explanations in bipolar argumentation frameworks Miao, Chunyan Leung, Cyril Shen, Zhiqi Chin, Jing Jih Zeng, Zhiwei School of Computer Science and Engineering Interdisciplinary Graduate School (IGS) Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine (LKCMedicine) The Thirty-Third AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-19) Joint NTU-UBC Research Centre of Excellence in Active Living for the Elderly (LILY) Argumentation Explainable Artificial Intelligence Social sciences::Sociology The process of arguing is also the process of justifying and explaining. Transparent reasoning process endows argumentation good explainability. Recently, more research efforts have been devoted to realizing the explanatory power of argumentation in unipolar argumentation frameworks. In addition to the attack relation, bipolar frameworks consider the support relation, which brings greater expressibility but also complexity. It is worth exploring how the interactions encompassed in the support relation contribute to the arguing process and how to capture them in explanations. In this paper, we propose a “stronger” notion of defence and a new bipolar admissibility semantics, which are defined based on both the attack and the support relations, and use them to formalize two types of explanations, namely concise and strong explanations. We then present complete and sound processes for computing explanations by constructing bipolar dispute trees. NRF (Natl Research Foundation, S’pore) MOH (Min. of Health, S’pore) Accepted version 2019-08-26T02:25:12Z 2019-12-06T21:09:46Z 2019-08-26T02:25:12Z 2019-12-06T21:09:46Z 2019 Conference Paper Zeng, Z., Miao, C., Leung, C., Shen, Z., & Chin, J. J. (2019). Computing argumentative explanations in bipolar argumentation frameworks. The Thirty-Third AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-19), 3310079-10080. doi:10.1609/aaai.v33i01.330110079 https://hdl.handle.net/10356/103315 http://hdl.handle.net/10220/49774 10.1609/aaai.v33i01.330110079 en © 2019 Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI). All rights reserved. This paper was published in The Thirty-Third AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-19) and is made available with permission of Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI). 2 p. application/pdf |
institution |
Nanyang Technological University |
building |
NTU Library |
continent |
Asia |
country |
Singapore Singapore |
content_provider |
NTU Library |
collection |
DR-NTU |
language |
English |
topic |
Argumentation Explainable Artificial Intelligence Social sciences::Sociology |
spellingShingle |
Argumentation Explainable Artificial Intelligence Social sciences::Sociology Miao, Chunyan Leung, Cyril Shen, Zhiqi Chin, Jing Jih Zeng, Zhiwei Computing argumentative explanations in bipolar argumentation frameworks |
description |
The process of arguing is also the process of justifying and explaining. Transparent reasoning process endows argumentation good explainability. Recently, more research efforts have been devoted to realizing the explanatory power of argumentation in unipolar argumentation frameworks. In addition to the attack relation, bipolar frameworks consider the support relation,
which brings greater expressibility but also complexity. It is worth exploring how the interactions encompassed in the support relation contribute to the arguing process and how to capture them in explanations. In this paper, we propose a “stronger” notion of defence and a new bipolar admissibility semantics, which are defined based on both the attack and the support relations, and use them to formalize two types of explanations, namely concise and strong explanations. We
then present complete and sound processes for computing explanations by constructing bipolar dispute trees. |
author2 |
School of Computer Science and Engineering |
author_facet |
School of Computer Science and Engineering Miao, Chunyan Leung, Cyril Shen, Zhiqi Chin, Jing Jih Zeng, Zhiwei |
format |
Conference or Workshop Item |
author |
Miao, Chunyan Leung, Cyril Shen, Zhiqi Chin, Jing Jih Zeng, Zhiwei |
author_sort |
Miao, Chunyan |
title |
Computing argumentative explanations in bipolar argumentation frameworks |
title_short |
Computing argumentative explanations in bipolar argumentation frameworks |
title_full |
Computing argumentative explanations in bipolar argumentation frameworks |
title_fullStr |
Computing argumentative explanations in bipolar argumentation frameworks |
title_full_unstemmed |
Computing argumentative explanations in bipolar argumentation frameworks |
title_sort |
computing argumentative explanations in bipolar argumentation frameworks |
publishDate |
2019 |
url |
https://hdl.handle.net/10356/103315 http://hdl.handle.net/10220/49774 |
_version_ |
1683494182117703680 |