When is argumentation deductive?

This paper discusses and compares various answers to the question when argumentation is deductive. This includes an answer to the questions when argumentation is defeasible and whether defeasible argumentation is a subclass of deductive argumentation or whether it is a distinct form of argumentation. It is concluded that deductive and defeasible argumentation as conceived by Philosophers like Pollock and Rescher and as formalised in the ASPIC (Formula presented.)  framework and systems like Defeasible Logic Programming, are semantically different categories. For this reason, purely syntactic base logic approaches to formal argumentation are unsuitable for characterising this distinction

An informant-based approach to argument strength in Defeasible Logic Programming

This work formalizes an informant-based structured argumentation approach in a multi-agent setting, where the knowledge base of an agent may include information provided by other agents, and each piece of knowledge comes attached with its informant. In that way, arguments are associated with the set of informants corresponding to the information they are built upon. Our approach proposes an informant-based notion of argument strength, where the strength of an argument is determined by the credibility of its informant agents. Moreover, we consider that the strength of an argument is not absolute, but it is relative to the resolution of the conflicts the argument is involved in. In other words, the strength of an argument may vary from one context to another, as it will be determined by comparison to its attacking arguments (respectively, the arguments it attacks). Finally, we equip agents with the means to express reasons for or against the consideration of any piece of information provided by a given informant agent. Consequently, we allow agents to argue about the arguments’ strength through the construction of arguments that challenge (respectively, defeat) or are in favour of their informant agents.Fil: Cohen, Andrea. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Bahía Blanca. Instituto de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación. Universidad Nacional del Sur. Departamento de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación. Instituto de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación; ArgentinaFil: Gottifredi, Sebastián. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Bahía Blanca. Instituto de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación. Universidad Nacional del Sur. Departamento de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación. Instituto de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación; ArgentinaFil: Tamargo, Luciano Héctor. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Bahía Blanca. Instituto de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación. Universidad Nacional del Sur. Departamento de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación. Instituto de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación; ArgentinaFil: García, Alejandro Javier. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Bahía Blanca. Instituto de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación. Universidad Nacional del Sur. Departamento de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación. Instituto de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación; ArgentinaFil: Simari, Guillermo Ricardo. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Bahía Blanca. Instituto de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación. Universidad Nacional del Sur. Departamento de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación. Instituto de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación; Argentin

Foundations of implementations for formal argumentation

We survey the current state of the art of general techniques, as well as specific software systems for solving tasks in abstract argumentation frameworks, structured argumentation frameworks, and approaches for visualizing and analysing argumentation. Furthermore, we discuss challenges and promising techniques such as parallel processing and approximation approaches. Finally, we address the issue of evaluating software systems empirically with links to the International Competition on Computational Models of Argumentation

A Labelling Framework for Probabilistic Argumentation

The combination of argumentation and probability paves the way to new accounts of qualitative and quantitative uncertainty, thereby offering new theoretical and applicative opportunities. Due to a variety of interests, probabilistic argumentation is approached in the literature with different frameworks, pertaining to structured and abstract argumentation, and with respect to diverse types of uncertainty, in particular the uncertainty on the credibility of the premises, the uncertainty about which arguments to consider, and the uncertainty on the acceptance status of arguments or statements. Towards a general framework for probabilistic argumentation, we investigate a labelling-oriented framework encompassing a basic setting for rule-based argumentation and its (semi-) abstract account, along with diverse types of uncertainty. Our framework provides a systematic treatment of various kinds of uncertainty and of their relationships and allows us to back or question assertions from the literature

Formal Methods of Argumentation as Models of Engineering Design Decisions and Processes

Complex engineering projects comprise many individual design decisions. As these decisions are made over the course of months, even years, and across different teams of engineers, it is common for them to be based on different, possibly conflicting assumptions. The longer these inconsistencies go undetected, the costlier they are to resolve. Therefore it is important to spot them as early as possible. There is currently no software aimed explicitly at detecting inconsistencies in interrelated design decisions. This thesis is a step towards the development of such tools. We use formal methods of argumentation, a branch of artificial intelligence, as the foundation of a logical model of design decisions capable of handling inconsistency. It has three parts. First, argumentation is used to model the pros and cons of individual decisions and to reason about the possible worlds in which these arguments are justified. In the second part we study sequences of interrelated decisions. We identify cases where the arguments in one decision invalidate the justification for another decision, and develop a measure of the impact that choosing a specific option has on the consistency of the overall design. The final part of the thesis is concerned with non-deductive arguments, which are used in design debates, for example to draw analogies between past and current problems. Our model integrates deductive and non-deductive arguments side-by-side. This work is supported by our collaboration with the engineering department of Queen’s University Belfast and an industrial partner. The thesis contains two case studies of realistic problems and parts of it were implemented as software prototypes. We also give theoretical results demonstrating the internal consistency of our model

A framework for relating, implementing and verifying argumentation models and their translations

Computational argumentation theory deals with the formalisation of argument structure, conflict between arguments and domain-specific constructs, such as proof standards, epistemic probabilities or argument schemes. However, despite these practical components, there is a lack of implementations and implementation methods available for most structured models of argumentation and translations between them. This thesis addresses this problem, by constructing a general framework for relating, implementing and formally verifying argumentation models and translations between them, drawing from dependent type theory and the Curry-Howard correspondence. The framework provides mathematical tools and programming methodologies to implement argumentation models, allowing programmers and argumentation theorists to construct implementations that are closely related to the mathematical definitions. It furthermore provides tools that, without much effort on the programmer's side, can automatically construct counter-examples to desired properties, while finally providing methodologies that can prove formal correctness of the implementation in a theorem prover. The thesis consists of various use cases that demonstrate the general approach of the framework. The Carneades argumentation model, Dung's abstract argumentation frameworks and a translation between them, are implemented in the functional programming language Haskell. Implementations of formal properties of the translation are provided together with a formalisation of AFs in the theorem prover, Agda. The result is a verified pipeline, from the structured model Carneades into existing efficient SAT-based implementations of Dung's AFs. Finally, the ASPIC+ model for argumentation is generalised to incorporate content orderings, weight propagation and argument accrual. The framework is applied to provide a translation from this new model into Dung's AFs, together with a complete implementation

Integrating ontologies and argumentation for decision-making in breast cancer

This thesis describes some of the problems in providing care for patients with breast cancer. These are then used to motivate the development of an extension to an existing theory of argumentation, which I call the Ontology-based Argumentation Formalism (OAF). The work is assessed in both theoretical and empirical ways. From a clinical perspective, there is a problem with the provision of care. Numerous reports have noted the failure to provide uniformly high quality care, as well as the number of deaths caused by medical care. The medical profession has responded in various ways, but one of these has been the development of Decision Support Systems (DSS). The evidence for the effectiveness of such systems is mixed, and the technical basis of such systems remains open to debate. However, one basis that has been used is argumentation. An important aspect of clinical practice is the use of the evidence from clinical trials, but these trials are based on the results in defined groups of patients. Thus when we use the results of clinical trials to reason about treatments, there are two forms of information we are interested in - the evidence from trials and the relationships between groups of patients and treatments. The relational information can be captured in an ontology about the groups of patients and treatments, and the information from the trials captured as a set of defeasible rules. OAF is an extension of an existing argumentation system, and provides the basis for an argumentation-based Knowledge Representation system which could serve as the basis for future DSS. In OAF, the ontology provides a repository of facts, both asserted and inferred on the basis of formulae in the ontology, as well as defining the language of the defeasible rules. The defeasible rules are used in a process of defeasible reasoning, where monotonic consistent chains of reasoning are used to draw plausible conclusions. This defeasible reasoning is used to generate arguments and counter-arguments. Conflict between arguments is defined in terms of inconsistent formulae in the ontology, and by using existing proposals for ontology languages we are able to make use of existing proposals and technologies for ontological reasoning. There are three substantial areas of novel work: I develop an extension to an existing argumentation formalism, and prove some simple properties of the formalism. I also provide a novel formalism of the practical syllogism and related hypothetical reasoning, and compare my approach to two other proposals in the literature. I conclude with a substantial case study based on a breast cancer guideline, and in order to do so I describe a methodology for comparing formal and informal arguments, and use the results of this to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of OAF. In order to develop the case study, I provide a prototype implementation. The prototype uses a novel incremental algorithm to construct arguments and I give soundness, completeness and time-complexity results. The final chapter of the thesis discusses some general lessons from the development of OAF and gives ideas for future work

A framework for relating, implementing and verifying argumentation models and their translations

Computational argumentation theory deals with the formalisation of argument structure, conflict between arguments and domain-specific constructs, such as proof standards, epistemic probabilities or argument schemes. However, despite these practical components, there is a lack of implementations and implementation methods available for most structured models of argumentation and translations between them. This thesis addresses this problem, by constructing a general framework for relating, implementing and formally verifying argumentation models and translations between them, drawing from dependent type theory and the Curry-Howard correspondence. The framework provides mathematical tools and programming methodologies to implement argumentation models, allowing programmers and argumentation theorists to construct implementations that are closely related to the mathematical definitions. It furthermore provides tools that, without much effort on the programmer's side, can automatically construct counter-examples to desired properties, while finally providing methodologies that can prove formal correctness of the implementation in a theorem prover. The thesis consists of various use cases that demonstrate the general approach of the framework. The Carneades argumentation model, Dung's abstract argumentation frameworks and a translation between them, are implemented in the functional programming language Haskell. Implementations of formal properties of the translation are provided together with a formalisation of AFs in the theorem prover, Agda. The result is a verified pipeline, from the structured model Carneades into existing efficient SAT-based implementations of Dung's AFs. Finally, the ASPIC+ model for argumentation is generalised to incorporate content orderings, weight propagation and argument accrual. The framework is applied to provide a translation from this new model into Dung's AFs, together with a complete implementation

Computational Argumentation for the Automatic Analysis of Argumentative Discourse and Human Persuasion

Tesis por compendio[ES] La argumentación computacional es el área de investigación que estudia y analiza el uso de distintas técnicas y algoritmos que aproximan el razonamiento argumentativo humano desde un punto de vista computacional. En esta tesis doctoral se estudia el uso de distintas técnicas propuestas bajo el marco de la argumentación computacional para realizar un análisis automático del discurso argumentativo, y para desarrollar técnicas de persuasión computacional basadas en argumentos. Con estos objetivos, en primer lugar se presenta una completa revisión del estado del arte y se propone una clasificación de los trabajos existentes en el área de la argumentación computacional. Esta revisión nos permite contextualizar y entender la investigación previa de forma más clara desde la perspectiva humana del razonamiento argumentativo, así como identificar las principales limitaciones y futuras tendencias de la investigación realizada en argumentación computacional. En segundo lugar, con el objetivo de solucionar algunas de estas limitaciones, se ha creado y descrito un nuevo conjunto de datos que permite abordar nuevos retos y investigar problemas previamente inabordables (e.g., evaluación automática de debates orales). Conjuntamente con estos datos, se propone un nuevo sistema para la extracción automática de argumentos y se realiza el análisis comparativo de distintas técnicas para esta misma tarea. Además, se propone un nuevo algoritmo para la evaluación automática de debates argumentativos y se prueba con debates humanos reales. Finalmente, en tercer lugar se presentan una serie de estudios y propuestas para mejorar la capacidad persuasiva de sistemas de argumentación computacionales en la interacción con usuarios humanos. De esta forma, en esta tesis se presentan avances en cada una de las partes principales del proceso de argumentación computacional (i.e., extracción automática de argumentos, representación del conocimiento y razonamiento basados en argumentos, e interacción humano-computador basada en argumentos), así como se proponen algunos de los cimientos esenciales para el análisis automático completo de discursos argumentativos en lenguaje natural.[CA] L'argumentació computacional és l'àrea de recerca que estudia i analitza l'ús de distintes tècniques i algoritmes que aproximen el raonament argumentatiu humà des d'un punt de vista computacional. En aquesta tesi doctoral s'estudia l'ús de distintes tècniques proposades sota el marc de l'argumentació computacional per a realitzar una anàlisi automàtic del discurs argumentatiu, i per a desenvolupar tècniques de persuasió computacional basades en arguments. Amb aquestos objectius, en primer lloc es presenta una completa revisió de l'estat de l'art i es proposa una classificació dels treballs existents en l'àrea de l'argumentació computacional. Aquesta revisió permet contextualitzar i entendre la investigació previa de forma més clara des de la perspectiva humana del raonament argumentatiu, així com identificar les principals limitacions i futures tendències de la investigació realitzada en argumentació computacional. En segon lloc, amb l'objectiu de sol$\cdot$lucionar algunes d'aquestes limitacions, hem creat i descrit un nou conjunt de dades que ens permet abordar nous reptes i investigar problemes prèviament inabordables (e.g., avaluació automàtica de debats orals). Conjuntament amb aquestes dades, es proposa un nou sistema per a l'extracció d'arguments i es realitza l'anàlisi comparativa de distintes tècniques per a aquesta mateixa tasca. A més a més, es proposa un nou algoritme per a l'avaluació automàtica de debats argumentatius i es prova amb debats humans reals. Finalment, en tercer lloc es presenten una sèrie d'estudis i propostes per a millorar la capacitat persuasiva de sistemes d'argumentació computacionals en la interacció amb usuaris humans. D'aquesta forma, en aquesta tesi es presenten avanços en cada una de les parts principals del procés d'argumentació computacional (i.e., l'extracció automàtica d'arguments, la representació del coneixement i raonament basats en arguments, i la interacció humà-computador basada en arguments), així com es proposen alguns dels fonaments essencials per a l'anàlisi automàtica completa de discursos argumentatius en llenguatge natural.[EN] Computational argumentation is the area of research that studies and analyses the use of different techniques and algorithms that approximate human argumentative reasoning from a computational viewpoint. In this doctoral thesis we study the use of different techniques proposed under the framework of computational argumentation to perform an automatic analysis of argumentative discourse, and to develop argument-based computational persuasion techniques. With these objectives in mind, we first present a complete review of the state of the art and propose a classification of existing works in the area of computational argumentation. This review allows us to contextualise and understand the previous research more clearly from the human perspective of argumentative reasoning, and to identify the main limitations and future trends of the research done in computational argumentation. Secondly, to overcome some of these limitations, we create and describe a new corpus that allows us to address new challenges and investigate on previously unexplored problems (e.g., automatic evaluation of spoken debates). In conjunction with this data, a new system for argument mining is proposed and a comparative analysis of different techniques for this same task is carried out. In addition, we propose a new algorithm for the automatic evaluation of argumentative debates and we evaluate it with real human debates. Thirdly, a series of studies and proposals are presented to improve the persuasiveness of computational argumentation systems in the interaction with human users. In this way, this thesis presents advances in each of the main parts of the computational argumentation process (i.e., argument mining, argument-based knowledge representation and reasoning, and argument-based human-computer interaction), and proposes some of the essential foundations for the complete automatic analysis of natural language argumentative discourses.This thesis has been partially supported by the Generalitat Valenciana project PROME- TEO/2018/002 and by the Spanish Government projects TIN2017-89156-R and PID2020- 113416RB-I00.Ruiz Dolz, R. (2023). Computational Argumentation for the Automatic Analysis of Argumentative Discourse and Human Persuasion [Tesis doctoral]. Universitat Politècnica de València. https://doi.org/10.4995/Thesis/10251/194806Compendi