An argumentation semantics for rational human evaluation of arguments.

In abstract argumentation theory, many argumentation semantics have been proposed for evaluating argumentation frameworks. This article is based on the following research question: Which semantics corresponds well to what humans consider a rational judgment on the acceptability of arguments? There are two systematic ways to approach this research question: A normative perspective is provided by the principle-based approach, in which semantics are evaluated based on their satisfaction of various normatively desirable principles. A descriptive perspective is provided by the empirical approach, in which cognitive studies are conducted to determine which semantics best predicts human judgments about arguments. In this article, we combine both approaches to motivate a new argumentation semantics called SCF2. For this purpose, we introduce and motivate two new principles and show that no semantics from the literature satisfies both of them. We define SCF2 and prove that it satisfies both new principles. Furthermore, we discuss findings of a recent empirical cognitive study that provide additional support to SCF2.

Reasoning on conflicting information: An empirical study of Formal Argumentation.

According to the Argumentative Theory, human reasoning has an argumentative function, which consists of devising and evaluating arguments for and against various claims. It is however unclear how humans handle conflicting claims they face in everyday life (i.e., "Bob is telling me that Alice is at the library" vs. "Charles is telling me that Alice is at home"). We here investigate human argumentative reasoning in the light of Formal Argumentation, a research field that develops formal methods to give a normative account of argumentation and reasoning about conflicting information. In Formal Argumentation, multiple argumentation semantics that allow selecting sets of jointly acceptable arguments have been proposed. Nonetheless, it is unclear which of these semantics predicts best how humans evaluate the acceptability of conflicting arguments. We conducted an empirical study in which 130 young adults judged natural language arguments. We instructed them to draw the attack relation between the given arguments and to evaluate the acceptability of each of these arguments. Our results show that human judgments on the existence and directionality of attacks between the arguments conform to theoretical predictions from Formal Argumentation. We further found out that some less well-known argumentation semantics predicted human evaluation better than the most well-known semantics. These findings support the cognitive plausibility of variants of Formal Argumentation and bring new insights into reasoning about conflicting information.

LogiKEy workbench: Deontic logics, logic combinations and expressive ethical and legal reasoning (Isabelle/HOL dataset).

The LogiKEy workbench and dataset for ethical and legal reasoning is presented. This workbench simultaneously supports development, experimentation, assessment and deployment of formal logics and ethical and legal theories at different conceptual layers. More concretely, it comprises, in form of a dataset (Isabelle/HOL theory files), formal encodings of multiple deontic logics, logic combinations, deontic paradoxes and normative theories in the higher-order proof assistant system Isabelle/HOL. The data were acquired through application of the LogiKEy methodology, which supports experimentation with different normative theories, in different application scenarios, and which is not tied to specific logics or logic combinations. Our workbench consolidates related research contributions of the authors and it may serve as a starting point for further studies and experiments in flexible and expressive ethical and legal reasoning. It may also support hands-on teaching of non-trivial logic formalisms in lecture courses and tutorials. The LogiKEy methodology and framework is discussed in more detail in the companion research article titled "Designing Normative Theories for Ethical and Legal Reasoning: LogiKEy Framework, Methodology, and Tool Support" [5].