Introducing dialectical bases in defeasible argumentation

Defeasible argumentation is a form of defeasible reasoning, that emphasizes the notion of an argument. An argument A for a conclusion q is a tentative piece of reasoning which supports q. In an argumentative framework, common sense reasoning can be modeled as a process in which we must determine whether an argument justifies its conclusion. The process mentioned aboye takes considerable computational effort. For this reason it would be convenient to keep a repository of already computed justifications to save work already done with previously solved queries. In this paper we introduce the concept of dialectical bases as a first step in direction to defining a justification maintenance system for argumentative frameworks.Eje: Aspectos teóricos de la inteligencia artificialRed de Universidades con Carreras en Informática (RedUNCI

A Framework for Combining Defeasible Argumentation with Labeled Deduction

In the last years, there has been an increasing demand of a variety of logical systems, prompted mostly by applications of logic in AI and other related areas. Labeled Deductive Systems (LDS) were developed as a flexible methodology to formalize such a kind of complex logical systems. Defeasible argumentation has proven to be a successful approach to formalizing commonsense reasoning, encompassing many other alternative formalisms for defeasible reasoning. Argument-based frameworks share some common notions (such as the concept of argument, defeater, etc.) along with a number of particular features which make it difficult to compare them with each other from a logical viewpoint. This paper introduces LDSar, a LDS for defeasible argumentation in which many important issues concerning defeasible argumentation are captured within a unified logical framework. We also discuss some logical properties and extensions that emerge from the proposed framework.Comment: 15 pages, presented at CMSRA Workshop 2003. Buenos Aires, Argentin

From conditioning to learning communities: Implications of fifty years of research in e‐learning interaction design

This paper will consider e‐learning in terms of the underlying learning processes and interactions that are stimulated, supported or favoured by new media and the contexts or communities in which it is used. We will review and critique a selection of research and development from the past fifty years that has linked pedagogical and learning theory to the design of innovative e‐learning systems and activities, and discuss their implications. It will include approaches that are, essentially, behaviourist (Skinner and Gagné), cognitivist (Pask, Piaget and Papert), situated (Lave, Wenger and Seely‐Brown), socio‐constructivist (Vygotsky), socio‐cultural (Nardi and Engestrom) and community‐based (Wenger and Preece). Emerging from this review is the argument that effective e‐learning usually requires, or involves, high‐quality educational discourse, that leads to, at the least, improved knowledge, and at the best, conceptual development and improved understanding. To achieve this I argue that we need to adopt a more holistic approach to design that synthesizes features of the included approaches, leading to a framework that emphasizes the relationships between cognitive changes, dialogue processes and the communities, or contexts for e‐learning

Explanation for case-based reasoning via abstract argumentation

Case-based reasoning (CBR) is extensively used in AI in support of several applications, to assess a new situation (or case) by recollecting past situations (or cases) and employing the ones most similar to the new situation to give the assessment. In this paper we study properties of a recently proposed method for CBR, based on instantiated Abstract Argumentation and referred to as AA-CBR, for problems where cases are represented by abstract factors and (positive or negative) outcomes, and an outcome for a new case, represented by abstract factors, needs to be established. In addition, we study properties of explanations in AA-CBR and define a new notion of lean explanations that utilize solely relevant cases. Both forms of explanations can be seen as dialogical processes between a proponent and an opponent, with the burden of proof falling on the proponent

Improving argumentation-based recommender systems through context-adaptable selection criteria

Recommender Systems based on argumentation represent an important proposal where the recommendation is supported by qualitative information. In these systems, the role of the comparison criterion used to decide between competing arguments is paramount and the possibility of using the most appropriate for a given domain becomes a central issue; therefore, an argumentative recommender system that offers an interchangeable argument comparison criterion provides a significant ability that can be exploited by the user. However, in most of current recommender systems, the argument comparison criterion is either fixed, or codified within the arguments. In this work we propose a formalization of context-adaptable selection criteria that enhances the argumentative reasoning mechanism. Thus, we do not propose of a new type of recommender system; instead we present a mechanism that expand the capabilities of existing argumentation-based recommender systems. More precisely, our proposal is to provide a way of specifying how to select and use the most appropriate argument comparison criterion effecting the selection on the user´s preferences, giving the possibility of programming, by the use of conditional expressions, which argument preference criterion has to be used in each particular situation.Fil: Teze, Juan Carlos Lionel. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Bahía Blanca; Argentina. Universidad Nacional del Sur. Departamento de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de Entre Ríos; ArgentinaFil: Gottifredi, Sebastián. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Bahía Blanca; Argentina. Universidad Nacional del Sur. Departamento de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación; ArgentinaFil: García, Alejandro Javier. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Bahía Blanca; Argentina. Universidad Nacional del Sur. Departamento de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación; ArgentinaFil: Simari, Guillermo Ricardo. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Bahía Blanca; Argentina. Universidad Nacional del Sur. Departamento de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación; Argentin

Argumentation for machine learning: a survey

Existing approaches using argumentation to aid or improve machine learning differ in the type of machine learning technique they consider, in their use of argumentation and in their choice of argumentation framework and semantics. This paper presents a survey of this relatively young field highlighting, in particular, its achievements to date, the applications it has been used for as well as the benefits brought about by the use of argumentation, with an eye towards its future