Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userCo-Arg: Cogent Argumentation with Crowd Elicitation
105
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
Mihai Boicu
Publication date
2018
fields
Informatics Engineering
and research's language is
English
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
This paper presents Co-Arg, a new type of cognitive assistant to an intelligence analyst that enables the synergistic integration of analyst imagination and expertise, computer knowledge and critical reasoning, and crowd wisdom, to draw defensible and persuasive conclusions from masses of evidence of all types, in a world that is changing all the time. Co-Args goal is to improve the quality of the analytic results and enhance their understandability for both experts and novices. The performed analysis is based on a sound and transparent argumentation that links evidence to conclusions in a way that shows very clearly how the conclusions have been reached, what evidence was used and how, what is not known, and what assumptions have been made. The analytic results are presented in a report describes the analytic conclusion and its probability, the main favoring and disfavoring arguments, the justification of the key judgments and assumptions, and the missing information that might increase the accuracy of the solution.
rate research
Read More
In many real-life situations that involve exchanges of arguments, individuals may differ on their assessment of which supports between the arguments are in fact justified, i.e., they put forward different support-relations. When confronted with such situations, we may wish to aggregate individuals argumentation views on support-relations into a collective view, which is acceptable to the group. In this paper, we assume that under bipolar argumentation frameworks, individuals are equipped with a set of arguments and a set of attacks between arguments, but with possibly different support-relations. Using the methodology in social choice theory, we analyze what semantic properties of bipolar argumentation frameworks can be preserved by aggregation rules during the aggregation of support-relations.
This paper applies t-SNE, a visualisation technique familiar from Deep Neural Network research to argumentation graphs by applying it to the output of graph embeddings generated using several different methods. It shows that such a visualisation approach can work for argumentation and show interesting structural properties of argumentation graphs, opening up paths for further research in the area.
The combination of argumentation and probability paves the way to new accounts of qualitative and quantitative uncertainty, thereby offering new theoretical and applicative opportunities. Due to a variety of interests, probabilistic argumentation is approached in the literature with different frameworks, pertaining to structured and abstract argumentation, and with respect to diverse types of uncertainty, in particular the uncertainty on the credibility of the premises, the uncertainty about which arguments to consider, and the uncertainty on the acceptance status of arguments or statements. Towards a general framework for probabilistic argumentation, we investigate a labelling-oriented framework encompassing a basic setting for rule-based argumentation and its (semi-) abstract account, along with diverse types of uncertainty. Our framework provides a systematic treatment of various kinds of uncertainty and of their relationships and allows us to back or question assertions from the literature.
The paper develops a formal theory of the degree of justification of arguments, which relies solely on the structure of an argumentation framework, and which can be successfully interfaced with approaches to instantiated argumentation. The theory is developed in three steps. First, the paper introduces a graded generalization of the two key notions underpinning Dungs semantics: self-defense and conflict-freeness. This leads to a natural generalization of Dungs semantics, whereby standard extensions are weakened or strengthened depending on the level of self-defense and conflict-freeness they meet. The paper investigates the fixpoint theory of these semantics, establishing existence results for them. Second, the paper shows how graded semantics readily provide an approach to argument rankings, offering a novel contribution to the recently growing research programme on ranking-based semantics. Third, this novel approach to argument ranking is applied and studied in the context of instantiated argumentation frameworks, and in so doing is shown to account for a simple form of accrual of arguments within the Dung paradigm. Finally, the theory is compared in detail with existing approaches.
We analyze the recently released CoGeNT data with a focus on their time-dependent properties. Using various statistical techniques, we confirm the presence of modulation in the data, and find a significant component at high (E_{ee} > 1.5$ keVee) energies. We find that standard elastic WIMPs in a Maxwellian halo do not provide a good description of the modulation. We consider the possibility of non-standard halos, using halo independent techniques, and find a good agreement with the DAMA modulation for Q_{Na} approx 0.3, but disfavoring interpretations with Q_{Na} = 0.5. The same techniques indicate that CDMS-Ge should see an O(1) modulation, and XENON100 should have seen 10-30 events (based upon the modulation in the 1.5-3.1 keVee range), unless L_{eff} is smaller than recent measurements. Models such as inelastic dark matter provide a good fit to the modulation, but not the spectrum. We note that tensions with XENON could be alleviated in such models if the peak is dominantly in April, when XENON data are not available due to noise.
suggested questions
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
