Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 1612.04469

Web-based Argumentation

Kenrick
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Assumption-Based Argumentation (ABA) is an argumentation framework that has been proposed in the late 20th century. Since then, there was still no solver implemented in a programming language which is easy to setup and no solver have been interfaced to the web, which impedes the interests of the public. This project aims to implement an ABA solver in a modern programming language that performs reasonably well and interface it to the web for easier access by the public. This project has demonstrated the novelty of development of an ABA solver, that computes conflict-free, stable, admissible, grounded, ideal, and complete semantics, in Python programming language which can be used via an easy-to-use web interface for visualization of the argument and dispute trees. Experiments were conducted to determine the project's best configurations and to compare this project with proxdd, a state-of-the-art ABA solver, which has no web interface and computes less number of semantics. From the results of the experiments, this project's best configuration is achieved by utilizing "pickle" technique and tree caching technique. Using this project's best configuration, this project achieved a lower average runtime compared to proxdd. On other aspect, this project encountered more cases with exceptions compared to proxdd, which might be caused by this project computing more semantics and hence requires more resources to do so. Hence, it can be said that this project run comparably well to the state-of-the-art ABA solver proxdd. Future works of this project include computational complexity analysis and efficiency analysis of algorithms implemented, implementation of more semantics in argumentation framework, and usability testing of the web interface.

Explore related subjects

cs.AI

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Kenrick. 2016-12-14. Web-based Argumentation. https://arxiv.org/abs/1612.04469

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Decoupling Readiness from Release for Tail-Aware Scheduling of Agentic LLM Workflows

Agentic LLM workflows consist of sequences of model turns interleaved with tool interactions, so their end-to-end completion time depends not only on inference speed but also on when ready turns are released. Most runtimes release each turn immediately upon readiness. Under contention, this eager release policy can accumulate released but unfinished work; once submitted, those turns can no longer be reordered by the workflow-level policy, increasing tail latency. We present a tail-risk-aware turn release scheduling method that jointly decides which ready turn to release next and how much released but unfinished work to maintain. The method uses a mean--Conditional Value-at-Risk (CVaR) objective to capture the evolving tail risk of unfinished workflows, incorporates online estimates of turn work when prioritizing ready turns, and adapts the released work budget to observed queue pressure. We evaluate the method using real agent execution traces from software engineering tasks across multiple LLMs and workflow arrival rates. The method performs comparably to eager release under light load and substantially reduces the P95 of workflow flow time under contention, achieving up to a \(3.50\times\) speedup.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

Demystifying the Privacy-Utility Trade-off in LLM Interactions

The integration of Large Language Models into daily tasks relies on context-rich instructions, inevitably exposing sensitive user information. Current privacy-preserving methods typically employ context-agnostic static rules, causing severe utility degradation. However, the specific mechanisms governing how sanitization impacts downstream performance remain largely underexplored. To address this, we conduct a systematic analysis to deconstruct the privacy-utility trade-off, uncovering three underlying mechanisms: (1) Context-Dependent Utility, which first establishes when to sanitize by revealing that data value shifts from critical constraints to dispensable noise based on user intent; (2) Strategic Adaptation, which subsequently determines how to sanitize by dictating that the choice between removal and replacement depends on the task's reliance on factual integrity versus structural coherence; and (3) Combinatorial Interplay, which finally extends the protection scope by demonstrating that attributes form a semantic web of synergistic dependencies or antagonistic redundancies. Guided by these insights, we introduce an intent-driven local protection framework. By distilling a lightweight model Veilmind-4B to drive a dynamic extraction-sanitization-restoration pipeline, our approach reaches a low-leakage privacy point while preserving substantially higher response utility than existing privacy-oriented baselines, advancing the privacy-utility trade-off toward the Pareto frontier.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

Defining AI Agents: A Compendium of Criteria, Metrics, and Benchmarks

The term agent in artificial intelligence lacks a standard definition, complicating the evaluation, comparison, and reproducibility of AI agent research. We address this ambiguity through a survey organized around five dimensions of agenticness: environmental interaction, learning and adaptation, autonomy, goal-directed behavior, and temporal coherence. For each dimension, we examine how the underlying capability has been conceptualized across prior work and synthesize the metrics, benchmarks, and evaluation frameworks used to assess it. This review provides a structured account of the current landscape of agent evaluation, highlighting both established approaches and areas where evaluation remains limited or inconsistent. We additionally introduce the Agent Compendium, a public-facing digital resource that organizes and extends the evaluation methods identified through this review. Together, the survey and compendium provide a common structure for evaluating and comparing agent capabilities across AI systems, supporting more reproducible research, clearer communication, and more systematic study of artificial agents.

cs.AI↗