Neuro-Symbolic Agents: Boltzmann Machines and Probabilistic Abstract Argumentation with Sub-Arguments
نویسندگان
چکیده
Towards neuro-argumentative agents based on the seamless integration of neural networks and defeasible formalisms, with principled probabilistic settings and along efficient algorithms, we investigate argumentative Boltzmann machines where the possible states of a Boltzmann machine are constrained by a prior argumentative knowledge. To make our ideas as widely applicable as possible, and acknowledging the role of sub-arguments in probabilistic argumentation, we consider an abstract argumentation framework accounting for sub-arguments, but where the content of (sub-)arguments is left unspecified. We validate our proposal with artificial datasets and suggest its advantages.
منابع مشابه
Probabilistic abstract argumentation: an investigation with Boltzmann machines
Probabilistic argumentation and neuro-argumentative systems offer new computational perspectives for the theory and applications of argumentation, but their principled construction involve two entangled problems. On the one hand, probabilistic argumentation aims at combining the quantitative uncertainty addressed by probability theory with the qualitative uncertainty of argumentation, but proba...
متن کاملOn Learning Attacks in Probabilistic Abstract Argumentation
Probabilistic argumentation combines the quantitative uncertainty accounted by probability theory with the qualitative uncertainty captured by argumentation. In this paper, we investigate the problem of learning the structure of an argumentative graph to account for (a distribution of) labellings of a set of arguments. We consider a general abstract framework, where the structure of arguments i...
متن کاملOn the Complexity of Probabilistic Abstract Argumentation
Probabilistic abstract argumentation combines Dung’s abstract argumentation framework with probability theory in order to model uncertainty in argumentation. In this setting, we address the fundamental problem of computing the probability that a set of arguments is an extension according to a given semantics. We focus on the most popular semantics (i.e., admissible, stable, complete, grounded, ...
متن کاملProbabilistic Reasoning with Abstract Argumentation Frameworks
Abstract argumentation offers an appealing way of representing and evaluating arguments and counterarguments. This approach can be enhanced by considering probability assignments on arguments, allowing for a quantitative treatment of formal argumentation. In this paper, we regard the assignment as denoting the degree of belief that an agent has in an argument being acceptable. While there are v...
متن کاملSome Foundations for Probabilistic Abstract Argumentation
Recently, there has been a proposal by Dung and Thang and by Li et al to extend abstract argumentation to take uncertainty of arguments into account by assigning a probability value to each argument, and then use this assignment to determine the probability that a set of arguments is an extension. In this paper, we explore some of the assumptions behind the definitions, and some of the resultin...
متن کامل