Rejecting Arguments Based on Doubt in Structured Bipolar Argumentation

Dimensions overall score 3.0

• Developing a novel approach to computational argumentation integrating doubt and sentence acceptance over arguments. Namely, it takes into account two ideas that have received little attention in the literature on computational argumentation: First, an agent may rationally reject an argument based on mere doubt, thus not all arguments they could defend must be accepted; and, second, that it is sometimes more natural to think in terms of which individual sentences or claims an agent accepts in a debate, rather than which arguments.problem 35%
  Evidencepartial

  Developing a novel approach to computational argumentation integrating doubt and sentence acceptance over arguments. Namely, it takes into account two ideas that have received little attention in the literature on computational argumentation: First, an agent may rationally reject an argument based on mere doubt, thus not all arguments they could defend must be accepted; and, second, that it is sometimes more natural to think in terms of which individual sentences or claims an agent accepts in a debate, rather than which arguments.

  Implicationpartial

  Abstract-backed fallback claim; anchored extraction has not materialized a public claim row yet.

  Verificationpartial

  partial

• This paper develops a new approach to computational argumentation that is informed by philosophical and linguistic views. Namely, it takes into account two ideas that have received little attention in the literature on computational argumentation: First, an agent may rationally reject an argument based on mere doubt, thus not all arguments they could defend must be accepted; and, second, that it is sometimes more natural to think in terms of which individual sentences or claims an agent accepts in a debate, rather than which arguments.method 35%
  Evidencepartial

  This paper develops a new approach to computational argumentation that is informed by philosophical and linguistic views. Namely, it takes into account two ideas that have received little attention in the literature on computational argumentation: First, an agent may rationally reject an argument based on mere doubt, thus not all arguments they could defend must be accepted; and, second, that it is sometimes more natural to think in terms of which individual sentences or claims an agent accepts in a debate, rather than which arguments.

  Implicationpartial

  Abstract-backed fallback claim; anchored extraction has not materialized a public claim row yet.

  Verificationpartial

  partial

• ScienceToStartup currently rates this 3.0/10 on the public viability pass. In order to incorporate these two ideas into a computational approach, we first define the notion of structured bipolar argumentation frameworks (SBAFs), where arguments consist of sentences and we have both an attack and a support relation between them.result 35%
  Evidencepartial

  ScienceToStartup currently rates this 3.0/10 on the public viability pass. In order to incorporate these two ideas into a computational approach, we first define the notion of structured bipolar argumentation frameworks (SBAFs), where arguments consist of sentences and we have both an attack and a support relation between them.

  Implicationpartial

  Abstract-backed fallback claim; anchored extraction has not materialized a public claim row yet.

  Verificationpartial

  partial

• Cognitive AI moved forward this cycle; last verified April 2026. Public score 3.0/10.why now 35%
  Evidencepartial

  Cognitive AI moved forward this cycle; last verified April 2026. Public score 3.0/10.

  Implicationpartial

  Abstract-backed fallback claim; anchored extraction has not materialized a public claim row yet.

  Verificationpartial

  partial

Competitive landscape

Developing a novel approach to computational argumentation integrating doubt and sentence acceptance over arguments.