MPI-INF Logo
Campus Event Calendar

Event Entry

What and Who

Evaluation Methods of Arguments

Leila Amgoud
Research director at CNRS
Talk
AG 1, AG 2, AG 3, AG 4, AG 5, RG1, SWS, MMCI  
AG Audience
English

Date, Time and Location

Wednesday, 11 October 2017
16:15
30 Minutes
E1 4
024
Saarbrücken

Abstract

Argumentation is a reasoning process based on the justification of conclusions by arguments. Due to its explanatory power, it has become a hot topic in Artificial Intelligence. It is used for making decisions under uncertainty, learning rules, modeling different types of dialogs, and more importantly for reasoning about inconsistent information. Hence, an argument’s conclusion may have different natures: a statement that is true or false, an action to do, a goal to pursue, etc. Furthermore, an argument has generally an intrinsic strength, which may represent different issues (the certainty degree of its reason, the importance of the value it promotes if any, the reliability of its source, …). Whatever its intrinsic strength (strong or weak), an argument may be weakened by other arguments (called attackers), and may be strengthened by others (called supporters). The overall strength of an argument needs then to be evaluated.


In this talk, I recall the two classes of methods (extension semantics and gradual semantics) that were proposed in the literature. I analyze them against a set of rationality principles, and show that they are fundamentally different. This means that in concrete applications, they lead to different results. Namely, in case of reasoning with inconsistent information, extension semantics follow the same line of research as well-known syntactic approaches for handling inconsistency, while gradual semantics lead to novel and powerful ranking logics.

Contact

Cosmina Croitoru
--email hidden
passcode not visible
logged in users only

Cosmina Croitoru, 10/02/2017 17:21
Cosmina Croitoru, 10/02/2017 17:20 -- Created document.