Showing 1–19 of 19 results for author: Arisaka, R

Discussion Graph Semantics of First-Order Logic with Equality for Reasoning about Discussion and Argumentation

Authors: Ryuta Arisaka

Abstract: We formulate discussion graph semantics of first-order logic with equality for reasoning about discussion and argumentation as naturally as we would reason about sentences. While there are a few existing proposals to use a formal logic for reasoning about argumentation, they are constructed bottom-up and specialised to the argumentation model by Dung. There is indeed a conspicuous lack of a formal… ▽ More We formulate discussion graph semantics of first-order logic with equality for reasoning about discussion and argumentation as naturally as we would reason about sentences. While there are a few existing proposals to use a formal logic for reasoning about argumentation, they are constructed bottom-up and specialised to the argumentation model by Dung. There is indeed a conspicuous lack of a formal reasoning framework for handling general discussion and argumentation models. We achieve the generality through a top-down formulation of the semantics of first-order logic (with equality) formulas, addressing the current shortage. △ Less

Submitted 17 June, 2024; originally announced June 2024.

Theme Aspect Argumentation Model for Handling Fallacies

Authors: Ryuta Arisaka, Ryoma Nakai, Yusuke Kawamoto, Takayuki Ito

Abstract: From daily discussions to marketing ads to political statements, information manipulation is rife. It is increasingly more important that we have the right set of tools to defend ourselves from manipulative rhetoric, or fallacies. Suitable techniques to automatically identify fallacies are being investigated in natural language processing research. However, a fallacy in one context may not be a fa… ▽ More From daily discussions to marketing ads to political statements, information manipulation is rife. It is increasingly more important that we have the right set of tools to defend ourselves from manipulative rhetoric, or fallacies. Suitable techniques to automatically identify fallacies are being investigated in natural language processing research. However, a fallacy in one context may not be a fallacy in another context, so there is also a need to explain how and why it has come to be judged a fallacy. For the explainable fallacy identification, we present a novel approach to characterising fallacies through formal constraints, as a viable alternative to more traditional fallacy classifications by informal criteria. To achieve this objective, we introduce a novel context-aware argumentation model, the theme aspect argumentation model, which can do both: the modelling of a given argumentation as it is expressed (rhetorical modelling); and a deeper semantic analysis of the rhetorical argumentation model. By identifying fallacies with formal constraints, it becomes possible to tell whether a fallacy lurks in the modelled rhetoric with a formal rigour. We present core formal constraints for the theme aspect argumentation model and then more formal constraints that improve its fallacy identification capability. We show and prove the consequences of these formal constraints. We then analyse the computational complexities of deciding the satisfiability of the constraints. △ Less

Submitted 25 October, 2023; v1 submitted 30 May, 2022; originally announced May 2022.

Relational Argumentation Semantics

Authors: Ryuta Arisaka, Takayuki Ito

Abstract: In this paper, we propose a fresh perspective on argumentation semantics, to view them as a relational database. It offers encapsulation of the underlying argumentation graph, and allows us to understand argumentation semantics under a single, relational perspective, leading to the concept of relational argumentation semantics. This is a direction to understand argumentation semantics through a co… ▽ More In this paper, we propose a fresh perspective on argumentation semantics, to view them as a relational database. It offers encapsulation of the underlying argumentation graph, and allows us to understand argumentation semantics under a single, relational perspective, leading to the concept of relational argumentation semantics. This is a direction to understand argumentation semantics through a common formal language. We show that many existing semantics such as explanation semantics, multi-agent semantics, and more typical semantics, that have been proposed for specific purposes, are understood in the relational perspective. △ Less

Submitted 26 April, 2021; originally announced April 2021.

Abstract Interpretation in Formal Argumentation: with a Galois Connection for Abstract Dialectical Frameworks and May-Must Argumentation (First Report)

Authors: Ryuta Arisaka, Takayuki Ito

Abstract: Labelling-based formal argumentation relies on labelling functions that typically assign one of 3 labels to indicate either acceptance, rejection, or else undecided-to-be-either, to each argument. While a classical labelling-based approach applies globally uniform conditions as to how an argument is to be labelled, they can be determined more locally per argument. Abstract dialectical frameworks (… ▽ More Labelling-based formal argumentation relies on labelling functions that typically assign one of 3 labels to indicate either acceptance, rejection, or else undecided-to-be-either, to each argument. While a classical labelling-based approach applies globally uniform conditions as to how an argument is to be labelled, they can be determined more locally per argument. Abstract dialectical frameworks (ADF) is a well-known argumentation formalism that belongs to this category, offering a greater labelling flexibility. As the size of an argumentation increases in the numbers of arguments and argument-to-argument relations, however, it becomes increasingly more costly to check whether a labelling function satisfies those local conditions or even whether the conditions are as per the intention of those who had specified them. Some compromise is thus required for reasoning about a larger argumentation. In this context, there is a more recently proposed formalism of may-must argumentation (MMA) that enforces still local but more abstract labelling conditions. We identify how they link to each other in this work. We prove that there is a Galois connection between them, in which ADF is a concretisation of MMA and MMA is an abstraction of ADF. We explore the consequence of abstract interpretation at play in formal argumentation, demonstrating a sound reasoning about the judgement of acceptability/rejectability in ADF from within MMA. As far as we are aware, there is seldom any work that incorporates abstract interpretation into formal argumentation in the literature, and, in the stated context, this work is the first to demonstrate its use and relevance. △ Less

Submitted 22 July, 2020; originally announced July 2020.

Numerical Abstract Persuasion Argumentation for Expressing Concurrent Multi-Agent Negotiations

Authors: Ryuta Arisaka, Takayuki Ito

Abstract: A negotiation process by 2 agents e1 and e2 can be interleaved by another negotiation process between, say, e1 and e3. The interleaving may alter the resource allocation assumed at the inception of the first negotiation process. Existing proposals for argumentation-based negotiations have focused primarily on two-agent bilateral negotiations, but scarcely on the concurrency of multi-agent negotiat… ▽ More A negotiation process by 2 agents e1 and e2 can be interleaved by another negotiation process between, say, e1 and e3. The interleaving may alter the resource allocation assumed at the inception of the first negotiation process. Existing proposals for argumentation-based negotiations have focused primarily on two-agent bilateral negotiations, but scarcely on the concurrency of multi-agent negotiations. To fill the gap, we present a novel argumentation theory, basing its development on abstract persuasion argumentation (which is an abstract argumentation formalism with a dynamic relation). Incorporating into it numerical information and a mechanism of handshakes among members of the dynamic relation, we show that the extended theory adapts well to concurrent multi-agent negotiations over scarce resources. △ Less

Submitted 22 January, 2020; originally announced January 2020.

Broadening Label-based Argumentation Semantics with May-Must Scales (May-Must Argumentation)

Authors: Ryuta Arisaka, Takayuki Ito

Abstract: The semantics as to which set of arguments in a given argumentation graph may be acceptable (acceptability semantics) can be characterised in a few different ways. Among them, labelling-based approach allows for concise and flexible determination of acceptability statuses of arguments through assignment of a label indicating acceptance, rejection, or undecided to each argument. In this work, we co… ▽ More The semantics as to which set of arguments in a given argumentation graph may be acceptable (acceptability semantics) can be characterised in a few different ways. Among them, labelling-based approach allows for concise and flexible determination of acceptability statuses of arguments through assignment of a label indicating acceptance, rejection, or undecided to each argument. In this work, we contemplate a way of broadening it by accommodating may- and must- conditions for an argument to be accepted or rejected, as determined by the number(s) of rejected and accepted attacking arguments. We show that the broadened label-based semantics can be used to express more mild indeterminacy than inconsistency for acceptability judgement when, for example, it may be the case that an argument is accepted and when it may also be the case that it is rejected. We identify that finding which conditions a labelling satisfies for every argument can be an undecidable problem, which has an unfavourable implication to existence of a semantics. We propose to address this problem by enforcing a labelling to maximally respect the conditions, while keeping the rest that would necessarily cause non-termination labelled undecided. Several semantics will be presented and the relation among them will be noted. Towards the end, we will touch upon possible research directions that can be pursued further. △ Less

Submitted 12 July, 2020; v1 submitted 16 January, 2020; originally announced January 2020.

Comments: Changes made to the previous version. 1. Definitions of satisfaction of may/must conditions have been simplified. 2. Corrected the definition of a maximally designating labelling which is now called a maximally proper labelling instead

Formulating Manipulable Argumentation with Intra-/Inter-Agent Preferences

Authors: Ryuta Arisaka, Makoto Hagiwara, Takayuki Ito

Abstract: From marketing to politics, exploitation of incomplete information through selective communication of arguments is ubiquitous. In this work, we focus on development of an argumentation-theoretic model for manipulable multi-agent argumentation, where each agent may transmit deceptive information to others for tactical motives. In particular, we study characterisation of epistemic states, and their… ▽ More From marketing to politics, exploitation of incomplete information through selective communication of arguments is ubiquitous. In this work, we focus on development of an argumentation-theoretic model for manipulable multi-agent argumentation, where each agent may transmit deceptive information to others for tactical motives. In particular, we study characterisation of epistemic states, and their roles in deception/honesty detection and (mis)trust-building. To this end, we propose the use of intra-agent preferences to handle deception/honesty detection and inter-agent preferences to determine which agent(s) to believe in more. We show how deception/honesty in an argumentation of an agent, if detected, would alter the agent's perceived trustworthiness, and how that may affect their judgement as to which arguments should be acceptable. △ Less

Submitted 14 September, 2019; v1 submitted 8 September, 2019; originally announced September 2019.

Comments: No major change except for some stylistic change

Turing-Completeness of Dynamics in Abstract Persuasion Argumentation

Authors: Ryuta Arisaka

Abstract: Abstract Persuasion Argumentation (APA) is a dynamic argumentation formalism that extends Dung argumentation with persuasion relations. In this work, we show through two-counter Minsky machine encoding that APA dynamics is Turing-complete. Abstract Persuasion Argumentation (APA) is a dynamic argumentation formalism that extends Dung argumentation with persuasion relations. In this work, we show through two-counter Minsky machine encoding that APA dynamics is Turing-complete. △ Less

Submitted 19 March, 2019; originally announced March 2019.

Block Argumentation

Authors: Ryuta Arisaka, Stefano Bistarelli, Francesco Santini

Abstract: We contemplate a higher-level bipolar abstract argumentation for non-elementary arguments such as: X argues against Ys sincerity with the fact that Y has presented his argument to draw a conclusion C, by omitting other facts which would not have validated C. Argumentation involving such arguments requires us to potentially consider an argument as a coherent block of argumentation, i.e. an argument… ▽ More We contemplate a higher-level bipolar abstract argumentation for non-elementary arguments such as: X argues against Ys sincerity with the fact that Y has presented his argument to draw a conclusion C, by omitting other facts which would not have validated C. Argumentation involving such arguments requires us to potentially consider an argument as a coherent block of argumentation, i.e. an argument may itself be an argumentation. In this work, we formulate block argumentation as a specific instance of Dung-style bipolar abstract argumentation with the dual nature of arguments. We consider internal consistency of an argument(ation) under a set of constraints, of graphical (syntactic) and of semantic nature, and formulate acceptability semantics in relation to them. We discover that classical acceptability semantics do not in general hold good with the constraints. In particular, acceptability of unattacked arguments is not always warranted. Further, there may not be a unique minimal member in complete semantics, thus sceptic (grounded) semantics may not be its subset. To retain set-theoretically minimal semantics as a subset of complete semantics, we define semi-grounded semantics. Through comparisons, we show how the concept of block argumentation may further generalise structured argumentation. △ Less

Submitted 18 January, 2019; originally announced January 2019.

Abstractly Interpreting Argumentation Frameworks for Sharpening Extensions

Authors: Ryuta Arisaka, Jeremie Dauphin

Abstract: Cycles of attacking arguments pose non-trivial issues in Dung style argumentation theory, apparent behavioural difference between odd and even length cycles being a notable one. While a few methods were proposed for treating them, to - in particular - enable selection of acceptable arguments in an odd-length cycle when Dung semantics could select none, so far the issues have been observed from a p… ▽ More Cycles of attacking arguments pose non-trivial issues in Dung style argumentation theory, apparent behavioural difference between odd and even length cycles being a notable one. While a few methods were proposed for treating them, to - in particular - enable selection of acceptable arguments in an odd-length cycle when Dung semantics could select none, so far the issues have been observed from a purely argument-graph-theoretic perspective. Per contra, we consider argument graphs together with a certain lattice like semantic structure over arguments e.g. ontology. As we show, the semantic-argumentgraphic hybrid theory allows us to apply abstract interpretation, a widely known methodology in static program analysis, to formal argumentation. With this, even where no arguments in a cycle could be selected sensibly, we could say more about arguments acceptability of an argument framework that contains it. In a certain sense, we can verify Dung extensions with respect to a semantic structure in this hybrid theory, to consolidate our confidence in their suitability. By defining the theory, and by making comparisons to existing approaches, we ultimately discover that whether Dung semantics, or an alternative semantics such as cf2, is adequate or problematic depends not just on an argument graph but also on the semantic relation among the arguments in the graph. △ Less

Submitted 5 February, 2018; originally announced February 2018.

Abstract Argumentation / Persuasion / Dynamics

Authors: Ryuta Arisaka, Ken Satoh

Abstract: The act of persuasion, a key component in rhetoric argumentation, may be viewed as a dynamics modifier. We extend Dung's frameworks with acts of persuasion among agents, and consider interactions among attack, persuasion and defence that have been largely unheeded so far. We characterise basic notions of admissibilities in this framework, and show a way of enriching them through, effectively, CTL… ▽ More The act of persuasion, a key component in rhetoric argumentation, may be viewed as a dynamics modifier. We extend Dung's frameworks with acts of persuasion among agents, and consider interactions among attack, persuasion and defence that have been largely unheeded so far. We characterise basic notions of admissibilities in this framework, and show a way of enriching them through, effectively, CTL (computation tree logic) encoding, which also permits importation of the theoretical results known to the logic into our argumentation frameworks. Our aim is to complement the growing interest in coordination of static and dynamic argumentation. △ Less

Submitted 7 November, 2018; v1 submitted 29 May, 2017; originally announced May 2017.

Comments: Arisaka R., Satoh K. (2018) Abstract Argumentation / Persuasion / Dynamics. In: Miller T., Oren N., Sakurai Y., Noda I., Savarimuthu B., Cao Son T. (eds) PRIMA 2018: Principles and Practice of Multi-Agent Systems. PRIMA 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 11224. Springer, Cham

Coalition Formability Semantics with Conflict-Eliminable Sets of Arguments

Authors: Ryuta Arisaka, Ken Satoh

Abstract: We consider abstract-argumentation-theoretic coalition formability in this work. Taking a model from political alliance among political parties, we will contemplate profitability, and then formability, of a coalition. As is commonly understood, a group forms a coalition with another group for a greater good, the goodness measured against some criteria. As is also commonly understood, however, a co… ▽ More We consider abstract-argumentation-theoretic coalition formability in this work. Taking a model from political alliance among political parties, we will contemplate profitability, and then formability, of a coalition. As is commonly understood, a group forms a coalition with another group for a greater good, the goodness measured against some criteria. As is also commonly understood, however, a coalition may deliver benefits to a group X at the sacrifice of something that X was able to do before coalition formation, which X may be no longer able to do under the coalition. Use of the typical conflict-free sets of arguments is not very fitting for accommodating this aspect of coalition, which prompts us to turn to a weaker notion, conflict-eliminability, as a property that a set of arguments should primarily satisfy. We require numerical quantification of attack strengths as well as of argument strengths for its characterisation. We will first analyse semantics of profitability of a given conflict-eliminable set forming a coalition with another conflict-eliminable set, and will then provide four coalition formability semantics, each of which formalises certain utility postulate(s) taking the coalition profitability into account. △ Less

Submitted 21 May, 2017; v1 submitted 2 May, 2016; originally announced May 2016.

Predicate Gradual Logic and Linguistics

Authors: Ryuta Arisaka

Abstract: There are several major proposals for treating donkey anaphora such as discourse representation theory and the likes, or E-Type theories and the likes. Every one of them works well for a set of specific examples that they use to demonstrate validity of their approaches. As I show in this paper, however, they are not very generalisable and do not account for essentially the same problem that they r… ▽ More There are several major proposals for treating donkey anaphora such as discourse representation theory and the likes, or E-Type theories and the likes. Every one of them works well for a set of specific examples that they use to demonstrate validity of their approaches. As I show in this paper, however, they are not very generalisable and do not account for essentially the same problem that they remedy when it manifests in other examples. I propose another logical approach. I develoop logic that extends a recent, propositional gradual logic, and show that it can treat donkey anaphora generally. I also identify and address a problem around the modern convention on existential import. Furthermore, I show that Aristotle's syllogisms and conversion are realisable in this logic. △ Less

Submitted 17 March, 2016; originally announced March 2016.

Latent Belief Theory and Belief Dependencies: A Solution to the Recovery Problem in the Belief Set Theories

Authors: Ryuta Arisaka

Abstract: The AGM recovery postulate says: assume a set of propositions X; assume that it is consistent and that it is closed under logical consequences; remove a belief P from the set minimally, but make sure that the resultant set is again some set of propositions X' which is closed under the logical consequences; now add P again and close the set under the logical consequences; and we should get a set of… ▽ More The AGM recovery postulate says: assume a set of propositions X; assume that it is consistent and that it is closed under logical consequences; remove a belief P from the set minimally, but make sure that the resultant set is again some set of propositions X' which is closed under the logical consequences; now add P again and close the set under the logical consequences; and we should get a set of propositions that contains all the propositions that were in X. This postulate has since met objections; many have observed that it could bear counter-intuitive results. Nevertheless, the attempts that have been made so far to amend it either recovered the postulate in full, had to relinquish the assumption of the logical closure altogether, or else had to introduce fresh controversies of their own. We provide a solution to the recovery paradox in this work. Our theoretical basis is the recently proposed belief theory with latent beliefs (simply the latent belief theory for short). Firstly, through examples, we will illustrate that the vanilla latent belief theory can be made more expressive. We will identify that a latent belief, when it becomes visible, may remain visible only while the beliefs that triggered it into the agent's consciousness are in the agent's belief set. In order that such situations can be also handled, we will enrich the latent belief theory with belief dependencies among attributive beliefs, recording the information as to which belief is supported of its existence by which beliefs. We will show that the enriched latent belief theory does not possess the recovery property. The closure by logical consequences is maintained in the theory, however. Hence it serves as a solution to the open problem in the belief set theories. △ Less

Submitted 26 January, 2016; v1 submitted 6 July, 2015; originally announced July 2015.

Comments: Corrected the following: 1. in Definition 1, earlier versions had 2^Props x 2^Props x N, but clearly it should be 2^{Props x Props x N}. 2. in Definition 1, one disjunctive case was missing. The 5th item is newly added to complete. 3. On page 3, in the right column, the 2nd axiom for Compactness has a typo. It is not P \in X, but should be P \in L(X)

On Nested Sequents for Constructive Modal Logics

Authors: Lutz Strassburger, Anupam Das, Ryuta Arisaka

Abstract: We present deductive systems for various modal logics that can be obtained from the constructive variant of the normal modal logic CK by adding combinations of the axioms d, t, b, 4, and 5. This includes the constructive variants of the standard modal logics K4, S4, and S5. We use for our presentation the formalism of nested sequents and give a syntactic proof of cut elimination. We present deductive systems for various modal logics that can be obtained from the constructive variant of the normal modal logic CK by adding combinations of the axioms d, t, b, 4, and 5. This includes the constructive variants of the standard modal logics K4, S4, and S5. We use for our presentation the formalism of nested sequents and give a syntactic proof of cut elimination. △ Less

Submitted 2 September, 2015; v1 submitted 26 May, 2015; originally announced May 2015.

Comments: 33 pages

Journal ref: Logical Methods in Computer Science, Volume 11, Issue 3 (September 3, 2015) lmcs:1583

How do you revise your belief set with %$;@*?

Authors: Ryuta Arisaka

Abstract: In the classic AGM belief revision theory, beliefs are static and do not change their own shape. For instance, if p is accepted by a rational agent, it will remain p to the agent. But such rarely happens to us. Often, when we accept some information p, what is actually accepted is not the whole p, but only a portion of it; not necessarily because we select the portion but because p must be perceiv… ▽ More In the classic AGM belief revision theory, beliefs are static and do not change their own shape. For instance, if p is accepted by a rational agent, it will remain p to the agent. But such rarely happens to us. Often, when we accept some information p, what is actually accepted is not the whole p, but only a portion of it; not necessarily because we select the portion but because p must be perceived. Only the perceived p is accepted; and the perception is subject to what we already believe (know). What may, however, happen to the rest of p that initially escaped our attention? In this work we argue that the invisible part is also accepted to the agent, if only unconsciously. Hence some parts of p are accepted as visible, while some other parts as latent, beliefs. The division is not static. As the set of beliefs changes, what were hidden may become visible. We present a perception-based belief theory that incorporates latent beliefs. △ Less

Submitted 26 January, 2016; v1 submitted 21 April, 2015; originally announced April 2015.

Comments: Corrected the following: 1. In Definition 1, the function I and Assoc were both defined to map into 2^Props x 2^Props, but they should be clearly into 2^{Props x Props}. 2. In Definition 1, one disjunctive case was being omitted. One case (5th item) was inserted to complete the picture

Gradual Classical Logic for Attributed Objects - Extended in Re-Presentation

Authors: Ryuta Arisaka

Abstract: Our understanding about things is conceptual. By stating that we reason about objects, it is in fact not the objects but concepts referring to them that we manipulate. Now, so long just as we acknowledge infinitely extending notions such as space, time, size, colour, etc, - in short, any reasonable quality - into which an object is subjected, it becomes infeasible to affirm atomicity in the concep… ▽ More Our understanding about things is conceptual. By stating that we reason about objects, it is in fact not the objects but concepts referring to them that we manipulate. Now, so long just as we acknowledge infinitely extending notions such as space, time, size, colour, etc, - in short, any reasonable quality - into which an object is subjected, it becomes infeasible to affirm atomicity in the concept referring to the object. However, formal/symbolic logics typically presume atomic entities upon which other expressions are built. Can we reflect our intuition about the concept onto formal/symbolic logics at all? I assure that we can, but the usual perspective about the atomicity needs inspected. In this work, I present gradual logic which materialises the observation that we cannot tell apart whether a so-regarded atomic entity is atomic or is just atomic enough not to be considered non-atomic. The motivation is to capture certain phenomena that naturally occur around concepts with attributes, including presupposition and contraries. I present logical particulars of the logic, which is then mapped onto formal semantics. Two linguistically interesting semantics will be considered. Decidability is shown. △ Less

Submitted 19 April, 2015; originally announced April 2015.

Comments: arXiv admin note: substantial text overlap with arXiv:1404.6036

Structural Interactions and Absorption of Structural Rules in BI Sequent Calculus

Authors: Ryuta Arisaka

Abstract: Development of a contraction-free BI sequent calculus, be it in the sense of G3i or G4i, has not been successful in literature. We address the open problem by presenting such a sequent system. In fact our calculus involves no structural rules. Development of a contraction-free BI sequent calculus, be it in the sense of G3i or G4i, has not been successful in literature. We address the open problem by presenting such a sequent system. In fact our calculus involves no structural rules. △ Less

Submitted 24 April, 2014; originally announced April 2014.

Gradual Classical Logic for Attributed Objects

Authors: Ryuta Arisaka

Abstract: There is knowledge. There is belief. And there is tacit agreement.' 'We may talk about objects. We may talk about attributes of the objects. Or we may talk both about objects and their attributes.' This work inspects tacit agreements on assumptions about the relation between objects and their attributes, and studies a way of expressing them, presenting as the result what we term gradual logic in w… ▽ More There is knowledge. There is belief. And there is tacit agreement.' 'We may talk about objects. We may talk about attributes of the objects. Or we may talk both about objects and their attributes.' This work inspects tacit agreements on assumptions about the relation between objects and their attributes, and studies a way of expressing them, presenting as the result what we term gradual logic in which the sense of truth gradually shifts. It extends classical logic instances with a new logical connective capturing the object-attribute relation. A formal semantics is presented. Decidability is proved. Para- consistent/epistemic/conditional/intensional/description/combined logics are compared. △ Less

Submitted 24 April, 2014; originally announced April 2014.