Probabilistic abstract argumentation: an investigation with Boltzmann machines

References

• Ackley D. H., Hinton G. E., & Sejnowski T. J. (1985). A learning algorithm for Boltzmann machines*. Cognitive Science, 9, 147–169. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog0901_7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baroni P., Caminada M., & Giacomin M. (2011). An introduction to argumentation semantics. Knowledge Engineering Review, 26, 365–410. doi: 10.1017/S0269888911000166
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baroni P., Giacomin M., & Vicig P. (2014). On rationality conditions for epistemic probabilities in abstract argumentation. Proceedings of computational models of argument: Vol. 266. Frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications (pp. 121–132). IOS Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bondarenko A., Dung P. M., Kowalski R. A., & Toni F. (1997). An abstract, argumentation-theoretic approach to default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 93, 63–101. doi: 10.1016/S0004-3702(97)00015-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cayrol C., & Lagasquie-Schiex M.-C. (2013). Bipolarity in argumentation graphs: towards a better understanding. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 54, 876–899. doi: 10.1016/j.ijar.2013.03.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• d'Avila Garcez A. S., Gabbay D. M., & Lamb L. C. (2005). Value-based argumentation frameworks as neural-symbolic learning systems. Journal of Logic and Computation, 15, 1041–1058. doi: 10.1093/logcom/exi057
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• d'Avila Garcez A. S., Gabbay D. M., & Lamb L. C. (2014). A neural cognitive model of argumentation with application to legal inference and decision making. Journal of Applied Logic, 12, 109–127. doi: 10.1016/j.jal.2013.08.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• d'Avila Garcez A. S., Lamb L., & Gabbay D. (2008). Neural-symbolic cognitive reasoning (1st ed.). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• De Finetti B. (1974). Theory of probability: a critical introductory treatment. Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Dondio P. (2014). Toward a computational analysis of probabilistic argumentation frameworks. Cybernetics and Systems, 45, 254–278. doi: 10.1080/01969722.2014.894854
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dung P. M. (1995). On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence, 77, 321–357. doi: 10.1016/0004-3702(94)00041-X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dung P. M., & Thang P. M. (2010). Towards (Probabilistic) argumentation for jury-based dispute resolution. Proceedings of the 2010 conference on computational models of argument, COMMA'10 (pp. 171–182). IOS Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fazzinga B., Flesca S., & Parisi F. (2013). On the complexity of probabilistic abstract argumentation. IJCAI, IJCAI/AAAI.
   Google Scholar
• Fruhwirth T. (2009). Constraint Handling Rules (1st ed.). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Getoor L., Friedman N., Koller D., Pfeffer A., & Taskar B. (2007). Probabilistic relational models. An introduction to statistical relational learning. MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Getoor L., & Taskar B. (2007). Introduction to statistical relational learning (Adaptive computation and machine learning). The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Governatori G., Maher M. J., Billington D., & Antoniou G. (2004). Argumentation Semantics for Defeasible Logic. Journal of Logic and Computation, 14, 675–702. doi: 10.1093/logcom/14.5.675
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Governatori G., Rotolo A., & Sartor G. (2005). Temporalised normative positions in defeasible logic. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (pp. 25–34). ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Hinton G. E. (2002a). Training products of experts by minimizing contrastive divergence. Neural Computation, 14, 1771–1800. doi: 10.1162/089976602760128018
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hinton G. E. (2002b). Training products of experts by minimizing contrastive divergence. Neural Computation, 14, 1771–1800. doi: 10.1162/089976602760128018
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hinton, G. (2012), “A Practical Guide to Training Restricted Boltzmann Machines,” Vol. 7700, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 599–619.
   Google Scholar
• Hinton A., Kwiatkowska M., Norman G., & Parker D. (2006). PRISM: A tool for automatic verification of probabilistic systems. Proceedings of the 12th international conference on tools and algorithms for the construction and analysis of systems, TACAS'06 (pp. 441–444). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Hopfield J. J. (1982). Neural networks and physical systems with emergent collective computational abilities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 79, 2554–2558. doi: 10.1073/pnas.79.8.2554
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hunter A. (2013). A probabilistic approach to modelling uncertain logical arguments. International Journal of Approximating Reasoning, 54, 47–81. doi: 10.1016/j.ijar.2012.08.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hunter A., & Thimm M. (2014). Probabilistic argumentation with epistemic extensions and incomplete information. CoRR, abs/1405.3376.
   Google Scholar
• Jaynes E. T. (1957). Information theory and statistical mechanics. Physical Review, 106, 620–630. doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.106.620
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koller D., & Friedman N. (2009). Probabilistic graphical models: principles and techniques – adaptive computation and machine learning. The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• LeCun Y., Chopra S., Hadsell R., Ranzato M., & Huang F. (2006). A tutorial on energy-based learning. In G. Bakir, T. Hofman, B. Schölkopf, A. Smola & B. Taskar (Eds.), Predicting structured data. MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Li S. Z. (1995). Markov random field modeling in computer vision. Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Li H. (2015). Probabilistic argumentation. University of Aberdeen.
   Google Scholar
• Li H., Oren N., & Norman T. J. (2011). Probabilistic argumentation frameworks. Revised selected papers of first international workshop theory and applications of formal argumentation, TAFA'11. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (pp. 1–16). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Modgil S., & Caminada M. (2009). Proof theories and algorithms for abstract argumentation frameworks. Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Springer, pp. 105–129.
   Google Scholar
• Mozina M., Zabkar J., & Bratko I. (2007). Argument based machine learning. Artificial Intelligence, 171, 922–937. doi: 10.1016/j.artint.2007.04.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murphy K. P. (2012). Machine learning: a probabilistic perspective. MIT press.
   Google Scholar
• Nute D. (2001). Defeasible logic. Handbook of logic in artificial intelligence and logic programming. Oxford University Press, pp. 353–395.
   Google Scholar
• Paolucci M., Kossmann D., Conte R., Lukowicz P., Argyrakis P., Blandford A., … Helbing D. (2013). Towards a living earth simulator. CoRR, abs/1304.1903.
   Google Scholar
• Prakken H., & Sartor G. (1997). Argument-based extended logic programming with defeasible priorities. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics, 7. doi: 10.1080/11663081.1997.10510900
   Google Scholar
• Rahwan I. (2008). Mass argumentation and the semantic web. Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web, 6, 29–37. doi: 10.1016/j.websem.2007.11.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Richardson M., & Domingos P. (2006). Markov logic networks. Machine Learning, 62, 107–136. doi: 10.1007/s10994-006-5833-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Riveret R., Pitt J. V., Korkinof D., & Draief M. (2015). Neuro-symbolic agents: Boltzmann machines and probabilistic abstract argumentation with sub-arguments. Proceedings of the 2015 international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems, AAMAS (pp. 1481–1489).
   Google Scholar
• Riveret R., Prakken H., Rotolo A., & Sartor G. (2008). Heuristics in argumentation: a game theory investigation. Proceedings of computational models of argument, COMMA'08, Vol. 172 of Frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications (pp. 324–335). IOS Press.
   Google Scholar
• Riveret R., Rotolo A., & Sartor G. (2012a). Norms and learning in probabilistic logic-based agents. Proceedings of the 11th international conference in deontic logic in computer science, DEON'12: Vol. 7393. Lecture notes in computer science (pp. 123–138). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Riveret R., Rotolo A., & Sartor G. (2012b). Probabilistic rule-based argumentation for norm-governed learning agents. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 20, 383–420. doi: 10.1007/s10506-012-9134-7
   Google Scholar
• Riveret R., Rotolo A., Sartor G., Prakken H., & Roth B. (2007). Success chances in argument games: a probabilistic approach to legal disputes. Proceeding of the 20th conference on legal knowledge and information systems, JURIX'07 (pp. 99–108). IOS Press.
   Google Scholar
• Roth B., Riveret R., Rotolo A., & Governatori G. (2007). Strategic argumentation: a game theoretical investigation. Proceedings of the 11th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, ICAIL'07 (pp. 81–90). ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Roux N. L., & Bengio Y. (2008). Representational power of restricted Boltzmann machines and deep belief networks. Neural Computation, 20, 1631–1649. doi: 10.1162/neco.2008.04-07-510
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salakhutdinov R., & Hinton G. E. (2009). Deep Boltzmann machines. In Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, AISTATS: Vol. 5. JMLR Proceedings (pp. 448–455).
   Google Scholar
• Sartor G. (2005). Legal reasoning: a cognitive approach to the law. Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Sato T. (2008). A glimpse of symbolic-statistical modeling by PRISM. Journal of Intelligent Information Systems, 31, 161–176. doi: 10.1007/s10844-008-0062-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schneider J., Groza T., & Passant A. (2013). A Review of Argumentation for the Social Semantic Web. Semantic Web, 4, 159–218.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sneyers J., Meert W., Vennekens J., Kameya Y., & Sato T. (2010). CHR(PRISM)-based probabilistic logic learning. CoRR, abs/1007.3858.
   Google Scholar
• Sneyers J., Schreye D. D., & Fruhwirth T. (2013). Probabilistic legal reasoning in CHRiSM. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming, 13, 769–781. doi: 10.1017/S1471068413000483
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thimm M. (2012). A probabilistic semantics for abstract argumentation. Proceedings of the 20th European conference on artificial intelligence, ECAI'12, Vol. 242 of Frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications (pp. 750–755). IOS Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tieleman T. (2008). Training restricted Boltzmann machines using approximations to the likelihood gradient. Proceedings of the 25th international conference on machine learning (pp. 1064–1071). ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Torroni P., Gavanelli M., & Chesani F. (2007). Argumentation in the semantic web. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 22, 66–74. doi: 10.1109/MIS.2007.100
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Torroni P., Gavanelli M., & Chesani F. (2009). Arguing on the semantic grid. Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Springer, pp. 423–441 (chap. 21).
   Google Scholar