We introduce Gradual Abstract Argumentation for Case-Based Reasoning (Gradual AA-CBR), a data-driven, neurosymbolic classification model in which the outcome is determined by an argumentation debate structure that is learned simultaneously with neural-based feature extractors. Each argument in the debate is an observed case from the training data, favouring their labelling. Cases attack or support those with opposing or agreeing labellings, with the strength of each argument and relationship learned through gradient-based methods. This argumentation debate structure provides human-aligned reasoning, improving model interpretability compared to traditional neural networks (NNs). Unlike the existing purely symbolic variant, Abstract Argumentation for Case-Based Reasoning (AA-CBR), Gradual AA-CBR is capable of multi-class classification, automatic learning of feature and data point importance, assigning uncertainty values to outcomes, using all available data points, and does not require binary features. We show that Gradual AA-CBR performs comparably to NNs whilst significantly outperforming existing AA-CBR formulations.
Provenance in databases has been thoroughly studied for positive and for recursive queries, then for first-order (FO) queries, i.e., having negation but no recursion. Query evaluation can be understood as a two-player game where the opponents argue whether or not a tuple is in the query answer. This game-theoretic approach yields a natural provenance model for FO queries, unifying how and why-not provenance. Here, we study the fine-grain structure of game provenance. A game $G=(V,E)$ consists of positions $V$ and moves $E$ and can be solved by computing the well-founded model of a single, unstratifiable rule: \[ \text{win}(X) \leftarrow \text{move}(X, Y), \neg \, \text{win}(Y). \] In the solved game $G^{\lambda}$, the value of a position $x\,{\in}\,V$ is either won, lost, or drawn. This value is explained by the provenance $\mathscr{P}$(x), i.e., certain (annotated) edges reachable from $x$. We identify seven edge types that give rise to new kinds of provenance, i.e., potential, actual, and primary, and demonstrate that "not all moves are created equal". We describe the new provenance types, show how they can be computed while solving games, and discuss applications, e.g., for abstract argumentation frameworks.
We present an approach for representing abstract argumentation frameworks based on an encoding into classical higher-order logic. This provides a uniform framework for computer-assisted assessment of abstract argumentation frameworks using interactive and automated reasoning tools. This enables the formal analysis and verification of meta-theoretical properties as well as the flexible generation of extensions and labellings with respect to well-known argumentation semantics.
In this paper, we present a learning-based approach to determining acceptance of arguments under several abstract argumentation semantics. More specifically, we propose an argumentation graph neural network (AGNN) that learns a message-passing algorithm to predict the likelihood of an argument being accepted. The experimental results demonstrate that the AGNN can almost perfectly predict the acceptability under different semantics and scales well for larger argumentation frameworks. Furthermore, analysing the behaviour of the message-passing algorithm shows that the AGNN learns to adhere to basic principles of argument semantics as identified in the literature, and can thus be trained to predict extensions under the different semantics - we show how the latter can be done for multi-extension semantics by using AGNNs to guide a basic search. We publish our code at https://github.com/DennisCraandijk/DL-Abstract-Argumentation
Generative adversarial networks (GANs) have been shown to provide an effective way to model complex distributions and have obtained impressive results on various challenging tasks. However, typical GANs require fully-observed data during training. In this paper, we present a GAN-based framework for learning from complex, high-dimensional incomplete data. The proposed framework learns a complete data generator along with a mask generator that models the missing data distribution. We further demonstrate how to impute missing data by equipping our framework with an adversarially trained imputer. We evaluate the proposed framework using a series of experiments with several types of missing data processes under the missing completely at random assumption.
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. As such, the ABM is a computational tool for tackling issues in the domain of scientific methodology and science policy. In contrast to existing ABMs of science, our model aims to represent the argumentative dynamics that underlies scientific practice. To this end we employ abstract argumentation theory as the core design feature of the model. This helps to avoid a number of problematic idealizations which are present in other ABMs of science and which impede their relevance for actual scientific practice.