6 accepted papers
Assessing the strength of arguments is essential for determining the outcomes of any argument-based system. A wide range of semantics has been proposed in the literature. These take as input a set of arguments—each assigned a basic weight and potentially subject to attacks from others—and compute a
The paper investigates how to evaluate elements in complex argumentation frameworks, where both arguments and attacks are weighted and might be attacked by arguments. We propose the first gradual semantics that assign a numerical value to every argument and attack. The value represents the acceptanc…
Explaining predictions made by inductive classifiers has become crucial with the rise of complex models acting more and more as black-boxes. Abductive explanations are one of the most popular types of explanations that are provided for the purpose. They highlight feature-values that are suffici…
Compensation is a strategy that a semantics may follow when it faces dilemmas between quality and quantity of attackers. It allows several weak attacks to compensate one strong attack. It is based on compensation degree, which is a tuple that indicates (i) to what extent an attack is weak an…
Improving trust in decisions made by classification models is becoming crucial for the acceptance of automated systems, and an important way of doing that is by providing explanations for the behaviour of the models. Different explainers have been proposed in the recent literature for that purpose,…
The paper discusses theoretical foundations that describe principles and processes involved in defining semantics that deal with similarity between arguments. Such semantics compute the strength of an argument on the basis of the strengths of its attackers, similarities between those attackers,…