Set Contribution Functions for Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation and their Principles
We present functions that quantify the contribution of a set of arguments in quantitative bipolar argumentation graphs to (the final strength of) an argument of interest, a so-called topic. Our set contribution functions are generalizations of existing functions that quantify the contribution of a single contributing argument to a topic. Accordingly, we generalize existing contribution function principles for set contribution functions and provide a corresponding principle-based analysis. We introduce new principles specific to set-based functions that focus on properties pertaining to the interaction of arguments within a set. Finally, we sketch how the principles play out across different set contribution functions given a recommendation system application scenario.
Code (0)
등록된 구현이 없습니다.
Similar Papers 제목 키워드 기반
Contribution Functions for Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation Graphs: A Principle-based Analysis
We present a principle-based analysis of contribution functions for quantitative bipolar argumentation graphs that quantify the contribution of one argument to another. The introduced principles formalise the intuitions …
From User Preferences to Base Score Extraction Functions in Gradual Argumentation (with Appendix)
Gradual argumentation is a field of symbolic AI which is attracting attention for its ability to support transparent and contestable AI systems. It is considered a useful tool in domains such as decision-making, recommen…
CE-QArg: Counterfactual Explanations for Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks (Technical Report)
There is a growing interest in understanding arguments' strength in Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks (QBAFs). Most existing studies focus on attribution-based methods that explain an argument's strength by a…
counterfactualvalidAggregative Semantics for Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks
Formal argumentation is being used increasingly in artificial intelligence as an effective and understandable way to model potentially conflicting pieces of information, called arguments, and identify so-called acceptabl…
Double Rectified Linear Unit-based Modular Semantics for Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation Framework
Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks (QBAFs) provide an alternative approach to computing argument acceptability in Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks (BAFs). Each argument is assigned an initial strength, which i…