Modules on Arg2p Wiki

Abstract Evaluation

Mon, 01 Jan 0001 00:00:00 +0000

Abstract Evaluation

The abstract evaluation feature allows you to compute extensions and labellings of an abstract argumentation framework (AF) using various semantics.

An argumentation framework is defined by:

A set of arguments
A set of attacks between arguments

The solver provides two main entry points:

`abstract::solve/5`

abstract::solve(Arguments, Attacks, I, O, U).

First parameter (Arguments): list of arguments
Second parameter (Attacks): list of attacks (pairs of arguments)
Third parameter (I): the set of arguments labelled In
Fourth parameter (O): the set of arguments labelled Out
Fifth parameter (U): the set of arguments labelled Undecided

This version returns the computed labelling under the chosen semantics.

Causality

Mon, 01 Jan 0001 00:00:00 +0000

Causality

The causality solver answers questions of the form “was this the cause of that?” over an argumentation theory. It is a separate module, built on top of the core engine, and it adds a small set of Prolog predicates implementing counterfactual and NESS causal tests.

It is available as the Maven module causality-solver and as the npm package @tuprolog/arg2p-causality-solver. It is also bundled in the IDE and in the JavaScript bridge, so in those two environments it is ready to use with no extra setup.

Distributed Solver

Mon, 01 Jan 0001 00:00:00 +0000

Distributed Solver

The actor solver evaluates a theory across a cluster of actors instead of a single engine. The knowledge base is split among the nodes, each node argues over its own fragment, and the partial results are combined into the final labelling. It is meant for theories large enough that a single solver becomes the bottleneck.

The module is JVM only — it is not published to npm — and is available as the Maven module actor-solver. The cooperative evaluation it implements is described in Pisano, Calegari and Omicini, Multi-agent cooperative argumentation in Arg2P; see References.

Meta-argumentation

Mon, 01 Jan 0001 00:00:00 +0000

Meta-argumentation

Ordinarily, a theory argues about statements: rules derive conclusions, and conclusions conflict. The meta features let a theory argue about the argumentation machinery itself — about which rules apply, what counts as a conflict, which rule prevails, and who carries the burden of persuasion.

Each of them turns something that is normally fixed (declared as a fact, or built into the engine) into something a rule can conclude, and therefore something another argument can attack.