AnneMarie Borg | Utrecht University (original) (raw)

Papers by AnneMarie Borg

Proceedings of the Eighteenth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning

In this paper we provide a detailed analysis of the inference process induced by logical argument... more In this paper we provide a detailed analysis of the inference process induced by logical argumentation frameworks. The frameworks may be defined with respect to any propositional language and logic, different arguments that represent deductions in the logic, various support-based attack relations between arguments, and all the complete Dung-style semantics for the frameworks. We show that, ultimately, for characterizing the inference process with respect to a given framework, extension-based semantics may be divided into two types: single-extension and multiple-extension, which induce respective kinds of entailment relations. These entailments are further classified by the way they tolerate new information (nonmonotonicity-related properties) and maintain conflicts among arguments (inconsistency-related properties).

Proceedings of the Eighteenth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning

Enforcement, adjusting an argumentation framework such that a certain set of arguments becomes ac... more Enforcement, adjusting an argumentation framework such that a certain set of arguments becomes acceptable, is an important research topic within the study of dynamic argumentation, but one that has been little studied for structured argumentation. In this paper we study enforcement in a general structured argumentation setting. In particular, we study conditions on the argumentation setting and the knowledge base that ensure (or prevent) the acceptability of sets of formulas for structured argumentation frameworks.

Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty. ECSQARU 2021. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 12897, 2021

In this paper, we discuss necessary and sufficient explanations – the question whether and why a ... more In this paper, we discuss necessary and sufficient explanations – the question whether and why a certain argument or claim can be accepted (or not) – for abstract and structured argumentation. Given a framework with which explanations for argumentation-based conclusions can be derived, we study necessity and sufficiency: what (sets of) arguments are necessary or sufficient for the (non-)acceptance of an argument or claim? We will show that necessary and sufficient explanations can be strictly smaller than minimal explanations, while still providing all the reasons for a conclusion and we discuss their usefulness in a real-life application.

IEEE Intelligent Systems, 2021

We discuss explanations for formal (abstract and structured) argumentation-the question whether a... more We discuss explanations for formal (abstract and structured) argumentation-the question whether and why a certain argument or claim can be accepted (or not) under various extension-based semantics. We introduce a flexible framework, which can act as the basis for many different types of explanations. For example, we can have simple or comprehensive explanations in terms of arguments for or against a claim, arguments that (indirectly) defend a claim, the evidence (knowledge base) that supports or is incompatible with a claim, and so on. We show how different types of explanations can be captured in our basic framework, discuss a real-life application and formally compare our framework to existing work.

Studia Logica, 2021

In this paper we introduce hypersequent-based frameworks for the modelling of defeasible reasonin... more In this paper we introduce hypersequent-based frameworks for the modelling of defeasible reasoning by means of logic-based argumentation and the induced entailment relations. These structures are an extension of sequent-based argumentation frameworks, in which arguments and the attack relations among them are expressed not only by Gentzen-style sequents, but by more general expressions, called hypersequents. This generalization allows us to overcome some of the known weaknesses of logical argumentation frameworks and to prove several desirable properties of the entailments that are induced by the extended (hypersequent-based) frameworks. It also allows us to incorporate as the deductive base of our formalism some well-known logics (like the intermediate logic LC, the modal logic S5, and the relevance logic RM), which lack cut-free sequent calculi, and so are not adequate for standard sequent-based argumentation. We show that hypersequent-based argumentation yields robust defeasible variants of these logics, with many desirable properties.

The eXplainable & Responsible AI in LAw workshop (XAILA at JURIX 2020 ), 2020

As AI systems are increasingly applied in real-life situations, it is essential that such systems... more As AI systems are increasingly applied in real-life situations, it is essential that such systems can give explanations that provide insight into the underlying decision models and techniques. Thus, users can understand, trust and validate the system, and experts can verify that the system works as intended. At the Dutch National Police several applications based on computational argumentation are in use, with police analysts and Dutch citizens as possible users. In this paper we show how a basic framework of explanations aimed at explaining argumentation-based conclusions can be applied to these applications at the police.

Proceedings of the 8th Conference on Computational Models of Argument, COMMA 2020, 2020

We study the dynamic argumentation task of detecting stability: given a specific structured argum... more We study the dynamic argumentation task of detecting stability: given a specific structured argumentation setting, can adding information change the acceptability status of some propositional formula? Detecting stability is not tractable for every input, but efficient computation is essential in practical applications. We present a sound approximation algorithm that recognises stability for many inputs in polynomial time and we discuss several of its properties. In particular, we show under which constraints on the input our algorithm is complete. The proposed algorithm is currently applied for fraud inquiry at the Dutch National Police-we provide an English demo version that also visualises the output of the algorithm.

Journal of Applied Logics – IfCoLog Journal of Logics and their Applications, 2020

In many expert and everyday reasoning contexts it is very useful to reason on the basis of defeas... more In many expert and everyday reasoning contexts it is very useful to reason on the basis of defeasible assumptions. For instance, if the information at hand is incomplete we often use plausible assumptions, or if the information is conflicting we interpret it as consistently as possible. In this paper sequent-based argumentation, a form of logical argumentation in which arguments are represented by a sequent, is extended to incorporate defeasible assumptions. The resulting assumptive framework is general, in that several other approaches to reasoning with assumptions from the literature can adequately be represented in it. Moreover, assumptive sequent-based argumentation has many desirable properties. It will be shown that assumptive sequent-based argumentation can easily be extended to a prioritized setting, it satisfies rationality postulates and reasoning with maximally consistent subsets can be represented in it.

Proceedings of the 33rd International Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society Conference, FLAIRS 2020, 2020

Logical argumentation is a well-known approach to modelling nonmonotonic reasoning with conflicti... more Logical argumentation is a well-known approach to modelling nonmonotonic reasoning with conflicting information. In this paper we provide a proof-theoretic study of properties of logical argumentation frameworks. Given some desiderata in terms of rationality postulates, we consider the conditions that an argumentation framework should fulfill for the desiderata to hold. The rationality behind this approach is to assist designers to "plug-in" pre-defined formalisms according to actual needs. This work extends related research on the subject in several ways: more postulates are characterized, a more abstract notion of arguments is considered, and it is shown how the nature of the attack rules (subset attacks versus direct attacks) affects the properties of the whole setting.

Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 2019

Formal models of scientific inquiry, aimed at capturing socio-epistemic aspects underlying the pr... more Formal models of scientific inquiry, aimed at capturing socio-epistemic aspects underlying the process of scientific research, have become an important method in formal social epistemology and philosophy of science. In this introduction to the special issue we provide a historical overview of the development of formal models of this kind and analyze their methodological contributions to discussions in philosophy of science. In particular, we show that their significance consists in different forms of 'methodological iteration' (Elliott, 2012) whereby the models initiate new lines of inquiry, isolate and clarify problems with existing knowledge claims, and stimulate further research. Throughout the last two decades philosophical discussions on scientific inquiry have increasingly utilized formal models. This has been especially fruitful for the investigation of social aspects of scientific inquiry, such as the division of cognitive labor, the epistemic effects of scientific interaction, the impact of biases on scientific research, etc. To this end a variety of formal models have been developed, from analytical ones to computer simulations in the form of agent-based models. One of the main advantages of formal approaches is that, in principle, they can help us to gain a precise understanding of the underlying issues and to form normative generalizations that are difficult to obtain in view of traditional methods (such as, for example, historical case studies). Nevertheless, models frequently come with a high degree of idealization and simplification, which may impede their reliability concerning actual scientific practice. This poses the question, to which 1

Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 2019

This is a survey of some recent results relating Dung-style semantics for different types of logi... more This is a survey of some recent results relating Dung-style semantics for different types of logical argumentation frameworks and several forms of reasoning with maximally consistent sets (MCS) of premises. The related formalsims are also examined with respect to some rationality postulates and are carried on to corresponding proof systems for non-monotonic reasoning.

European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 2019

Recent studies of scientific interaction based on agent-based models (ABMs) suggest that a crucia... more Recent studies of scientific interaction based on agent-based models
(ABMs) suggest that a crucial factor conducive to efficient inquiry is what Zollman, 2010 has dubbed ‘transient diversity’. It signifies a process in which a community engages in parallel exploration of rivaling theories
lasting sufficiently long for the community to identify the best theory and
to converge on it. But what exactly generates transient diversity? And
is transient diversity a decisive factor when it comes to the efficiency of
inquiry? In this paper we examine the impact of different conditions on
the efficiency of inquiry, as well as the relation between diversity and efficiency. This includes certain diversity-generating mechanisms previously proposed in the literature (such as different social networks and cautious decision-making), as well as some factors that have so far been neglected (such as evaluations underlying theory-choice performed by scientists). This study is obtained via an argumentation-based ABM (Borg et al., 2017, 2018). Our results suggest that cautious decision-making does not always have a significant impact on the efficiency of inquiry while different evaluations underlying theory-choice and different social networks do. Moreover, we find a correlation between diversity and a successful performance of agents only under specific conditions, which indicates that transient diversity is sometimes not the primary factor responsible for efficiency. Altogether, when comparing our results to those obtained by structurally different ABMs based on Zollman’s work, the impact of specific factors on efficiency of inquiry, as well as the role of transient diversity in achieving efficiency, appear to be highly dependent on the underlying model.

Journal of Logic and Computation, 2018

Reasoning with the maximally consistent subsets (MCS) of the premises is a well-known approach fo... more Reasoning with the maximally consistent subsets (MCS) of the premises is a well-known approach for handling contradictory information. In this paper we consider several variations of this kind of reasoning, for each one we introduce two complementary computational methods that are based on logical argumentation theory. The difference between the two approaches is in their ways of making consequences: one approach is of a declarative nature and is related to Dung-style semantics for abstract argumentation, while the other approach has a more proof-theoretical flavor, extending Gentzen-style sequent calculi. The outcome of this work is a new perspective on reasoning with MCS, which shows a strong link between the latter and argumentation systems, and which can be generalized to some related formalisms. As a by-product of this we obtain soundness and completeness results for the dynamic proof systems with respect to several of Dung’s semantics. In a broader context, we believe that this work helps to better understand and evaluate the role of logic-based instantiations of argumentation frameworks.

In many expert and everyday reasoning contexts it is very useful to reason on the basis of defeas... more In many expert and everyday reasoning contexts it is very useful to reason on the basis of defeasible assumptions. For instance, if the information at hand is incomplete we often use plausible assumptions, or if the information is conflicting we interpret it as consistent as possible. In this paper sequent-based argumentation, a form of logical argumentation in which arguments are represented by a sequent, is extended to incorporate assumptions. The resulting assumptive framework is general, in that some other approaches to reasoning with assumptions can adequately be represented in it. To exemplify this, we show that assumption-based argumentation can be expressed in assumptive sequent-based argumentation.

Proceedings of the 27th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2018, 2018

We study properties related to relevance in non-monotonic consequence relations obtained by syste... more We study properties related to relevance in non-monotonic consequence relations obtained by systems of structured argumentation. Relevance desiderata concern the robustness of a consequence relation under the addition of irrelevant information. For an account of what (ir)relevance amounts to we use syntactic and semantic considerations. Syntactic criteria have been proposed in the domain of relevance logic and were recently used in argumentation theory under the names of non-interference and crash-resistance. The basic idea is that the conclusions of a given argumentative theory should be robust under adding information that shares no propositional variables with the original database. Some semantic relevance criteria are known from non-monotonic logic. For instance, cautious monotony states that if we obtain certain conclusions from an argumentation theory, we may expect to still obtain the same conclusions if we add some of them to the given database. In this paper we investigate properties of structured argumentation systems that warrant relevance desiderata.

In this paper we integrate priorities in sequent-based argumentation. The former is a useful and ... more In this paper we integrate priorities in sequent-based argumentation. The former is a useful and extensively investigated tool in the context of non-monotonic reasoning, and the latter is a modular and general way of handling logical argumentation. Their combination offers a platform for representing and reasoning with maximally consistent subsets of prioritized knowledge bases. Moreover, many frameworks of the resulting formalisms satisfy common rationality postulates and other desirable properties, like conflict preservation.

In this paper we introduce hypersequent-based frameworks for the modeling of defeasible reasoning... more In this paper we introduce hypersequent-based frameworks for the modeling of defeasible reasoning by means of logic-based argumentation. These frameworks are an extension of sequent-based argumentation frameworks, in which arguments are represented not only by sequents, but by more general expressions, called hypersequents. This generalization allows to incorporate, as the deductive-base of our formalism, some well-studied logics like the modal logic S5, the relevant logic RM, and Gödel–Dummett logic LC, to which no cut-free sequent calculi are known. In this paper we take S5 as the core logic and show that the hypersequent-based argumentation frameworks that are obtained in this case yield a robust defeasible variant of S5 with several desirable properties.

In this paper we introduce hypersequent-based frameworks for the modeling of defeasible reasoning... more In this paper we introduce hypersequent-based frameworks for the modeling of defeasible reasoning by means of logic-based argumentation. These frameworks are an extension of sequent-based argumentation frameworks, in which arguments are represented not only by sequents, but by more general expressions, called hypersequents. This generalization allows us to overcome some of the weaknesses of logical argumentation reported in the literature and to prove several desirable properties, stated in terms of rationality postulates. For this, we take the relevance logic RM as the deductive base of our formalism. This logic is regarded as " by far the best understood of the Anderson-Belnap style systems " (Dunn & Restall, Handbook of Philosophical Logic, Vol.6). It has a clear semantics in terms of Sugihara matrices, as well as sound and complete Hilbert-and Gentzen-type proof systems. The latter are defined by hypersequents and admit cut elimination. We show that hypersequent-based argumentation yields a robust defeasible variant of RM with many desirable properties (e.g., rationality postulates and crash-resistance).

Advances in Artificial Intelligence: From Theory to Practice: 30th International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Other Applications of Applied Intelligent Systems, IEA/AIE 2017, Arras, France, June 27-30, 2017, Proceedings, Part I, 2017

It has been shown that entailments based on the maximally consistent subsets (MCS) of a given set... more It has been shown that entailments based on the maximally consistent subsets (MCS) of a given set of premises can be captured by Dung-style semantics for argumentation frameworks. This paper shows that these links are much tighter and go way beyond simplified forms of reasoning with MCS. Among others, we consider different types of entailments that these kinds of reasoning induce, extend the framework for arbitrary (not necessarily maximal) consistent subsets, and incorporate non-classical logics. The introduction of declarative methods for reasoning with MCS by means of (sequent-based) argumentation frameworks provides, in particular, a better understanding of logic-based argumentation and allows to reevaluate some negative results concerning the latter.

Baltag A., Seligman J., Yamada T. (eds) Logic, Rationality, and Interaction. LORI 2017. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 10455. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2017

In this paper we present an agent-based model (ABM) of scientific inquiry aimed at investigating ... more In this paper we present an agent-based model (ABM) of scientific inquiry aimed at investigating how different social networks impact the efficiency of scientists in acquiring knowledge. The model is an improved variant of the ABM introduced in [3], which is based on abstract argumentation frameworks. The current model employs a more refined notion of social networks and a more realistic representation of knowledge acquisition than the previous variant. Moreover, it includes two criteria of success: a monist and a pluralist one, reflecting different desiderata of scientific inquiry. Our findings suggest that, given a reasonable ratio between research time and time spent on communication, increasing the degree of connectedness of the social network tends to improve the efficiency of scientists.

Proceedings of the Eighteenth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning

Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty. ECSQARU 2021. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 12897, 2021

IEEE Intelligent Systems, 2021

Studia Logica, 2021

The eXplainable & Responsible AI in LAw workshop (XAILA at JURIX 2020 ), 2020

Proceedings of the 8th Conference on Computational Models of Argument, COMMA 2020, 2020

Journal of Applied Logics – IfCoLog Journal of Logics and their Applications, 2020

Proceedings of the 33rd International Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society Conference, FLAIRS 2020, 2020

Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 2019

Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 2019

European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 2019

Journal of Logic and Computation, 2018

In many expert and everyday reasoning contexts it is very useful to reason on the basis of defeas... more In many expert and everyday reasoning contexts it is very useful to reason on the basis of defeasible assumptions. For instance, if the information at hand is incomplete we often use plausible assumptions, or if the information is conflicting we interpret it as consistent as possible. In this paper sequent-based argumentation, a form of logical argumentation in which arguments are represented by a sequent, is extended to incorporate assumptions. The resulting assumptive framework is general, in that some other approaches to reasoning with assumptions can adequately be represented in it. To exemplify this, we show that assumption-based argumentation can be expressed in assumptive sequent-based argumentation.

Proceedings of the 27th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2018, 2018

In this paper we introduce hypersequent-based frameworks for the modeling of defeasible reasoning... more In this paper we introduce hypersequent-based frameworks for the modeling of defeasible reasoning by means of logic-based argumentation. These frameworks are an extension of sequent-based argumentation frameworks, in which arguments are represented not only by sequents, but by more general expressions, called hypersequents. This generalization allows us to overcome some of the weaknesses of logical argumentation reported in the literature and to prove several desirable properties, stated in terms of rationality postulates. For this, we take the relevance logic RM as the deductive base of our formalism. This logic is regarded as " by far the best understood of the Anderson-Belnap style systems " (Dunn & Restall, Handbook of Philosophical Logic, Vol.6). It has a clear semantics in terms of Sugihara matrices, as well as sound and complete Hilbert-and Gentzen-type proof systems. The latter are defined by hypersequents and admit cut elimination. We show that hypersequent-based argumentation yields a robust defeasible variant of RM with many desirable properties (e.g., rationality postulates and crash-resistance).

Baltag A., Seligman J., Yamada T. (eds) Logic, Rationality, and Interaction. LORI 2017. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 10455. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2017

An abstract argumentation framework is a pair: AF = Arg, Attack . We derive conclusions from a fr... more An abstract argumentation framework is a pair: AF = Arg, Attack . We derive conclusions from a framework by applying extension-based semantics.

We study properties related to relevance in non-monotonic consequence relations obtained by syste... more We study properties related to relevance in non-monotonic consequence relations obtained by systems of structured argumentation.
Relevance desiderata concern the robustness of a consequence relation under the addition of irrelevant information. For an account of what (ir)relevance amounts to we use syntactic and semantic considerations. Syntactic criteria have been proposed in the domain of relevance logic and were recently used in argumentation theory under the names of non-interference and crash-resistance. The basic idea is that the conclusions of a given argumentative theory should be robust under adding information that shares no propositional variables with the original database. Some semantic relevance criteria are known from non-monotonic logic. For instance, cautious monotony states that if we obtain certain conclusions from an argumentation theory, we may expect to still obtain the same conclusions if we add some of them to the given database. In this paper we investigate properties of structured argumentation systems that warrant relevance desiderata.

We provide a proof-theoretical study of properties of logical argumentation frameworks. Given som... more We provide a proof-theoretical study of properties of logical argumentation frameworks. Given some desiderata in terms of rationality
postulates, we consider the conditions that the underlying logic and/or
the argumentation framework should fulfill in order for the desiderata
to hold. The rationality behind this approach is to assist designers to
“plug-in” pre-defined formalisms according to actual needs.

In many expert and everyday reasoning contexts it is very useful to reason on the basis of defeas... more In many expert and everyday reasoning contexts it is very useful to reason on the basis of defeasible assumptions. For instance, if the information at hand is incomplete we often use plausible assumptions, or if the information is conflicting we interpret it as consistent as possible. In this paper sequent-based argumentation, a form of logical argumentation in which arguments are represented by a sequent, is extended to incorporate assumptions. The resulting assumptive framework is general, in that some other approaches to reasoning with assumptions can adequately be represented in it. To exemplify this, we show that assumption-based argumentation can be expressed in assumptive sequent-based argumentation.

In this paper we introduce hypersequent-based frameworks for the modeling of defeasible reasoning... more In this paper we introduce hypersequent-based frameworks for the modeling of defeasible reasoning by means of logic-based argumentation. These frameworks are an extension of sequent-based argumentation frameworks, in which arguments are represented not only by sequents, but by more general expressions, called hypersequents. This generalization allows to incorporate, as the deductive-base of our formalism, some well-studied logics like the modal logic S5, the relavent logic RM, and Gödel-Dummett logic LC, to which no cut-free sequent calculi are known. In this paper we take S5 as the core logic and show that the hypersequent-based argumentation frameworks that are obtained in this case yield a robust defeasible variant of S5 with several desirable properties.

Slides from a talk at MCMP, LMU Munich (June 27, 2018)

In this paper we introduce hypersequent-based frameworks for the modeling of defeasible reasoning... more In this paper we introduce hypersequent-based frameworks for the modeling of defeasible reasoning by means of logic-based argumentation. These frameworks are an extension of sequent-based argumentation frameworks, in which arguments are represented not only by sequents, but by more general expressions, called hypersequents. This generalization allows us to overcome some of the weaknesses of logical argumentation reported in the literature and to prove several desirable properties, stated in terms of rationality postulates. For this, we take the relevance logic RM as the deductive base of our formalism. This logic is regarded as "by far the best understood of the Anderson-Belnap style systems'' (Dunn & Restall, Handbook of Philosophical Logic, Vol.6). It has a clear semantics in terms of Sugihara matrices, as well as sound and complete Hilbert- and Gentzen-type proof systems. The latter are defined by hypersequents and admit cut elimination. We show that hypersequent-based argumentation yields a robust defeasible variant of RM with many desirable properties (e.g., rationality postulates and crash-resistance).

A talk at EPSA-17 with some new results

In this paper we introduce hypersequent-based frameworks for the modeling of defeasible reasoning... more In this paper we introduce hypersequent-based frameworks for the modeling of defeasible reasoning by means of logic-based argumentation. These frameworks are an extension of sequent-based argumentation frameworks, in which arguments are represented not only by sequents, but by more general expressions, called hypersequents. This generalization allows us to overcome some of the weaknesses of logical argumentation reported in the literature and to prove several desirable properties, stated in terms of rationality postulates. For this, we take the relevance logic RM as the deductive base of our formalism. This logic is regarded as "by far the best understood of the Anderson-Belnap style systems'' (Dunn & Restall, Handbook of Philosophical Logic, Vol.6). It has a clear semantics in terms of Sugihara matrices, as well as sound and complete Hilbert- and Gentzen-type proof systems. The latter are defined by hypersequents and admit cut elimination. We show that hypersequent-based argumentation yields a robust defeasible variant of RM with many desirable properties (e.g., rationality postulates and crash-resistance).

Workshop: Agent Based Modelling across Social Science, Economics, and Philosophy, October 21 - Oc... more Workshop: Agent Based Modelling across Social Science, Economics, and Philosophy, October 21 - October 22, 2016

Abstract:
In this talk we present an agent-based model (ABM) of scientific inquiry as a tool for investigating how different social networks impact the efficiency of scientists in acquiring knowledge. In contrast to other existing ABMs of science, our model aims to represent the argumentative dynamics that underlies scientific practice. To this end we employ abstract argumentation theory as the core design feature of the model. This helps to avoid a number of problematic idealizations which are present in other ABMs of science and which impede their relevance for the actual scientific practice.

Workshop: Philosophy of Scientific Experimentation 5 (PSX5), 22-23 September 2016, Belgrade, Serbia