Value-based argumentation

Value-based argumentation is concerned with recognising, accounting for, and reasoning with, the social purposes promoted by agents’ beliefs and actions. Value-based argumentation frameworks extend Dung’s abstract argumentation frameworks by ascribing an additional property to arguments, representing the values they promote, and recognising audiences. Values are ordered according to the preferences of an audience (different audiences will have different preferences) and an attack is successful only if the value of the attacked argument is not preferred to its attacker by its audience. Arguments can be related to values through the use of an argumentation scheme, thus enabling us to structure value-based argumentation. We describe the motivation of valuebased argumentation, its formal description and properties, the argumentation scheme and its associated critical questions and some of the applications to which value-based argumentation has been put

Abstract Games of Argumentation Strategy and Game-Theoretical Argument Strength

We define a generic notion of abstract games of argumentation strategy for (attack-only and bipolar) argumentation frameworks, which are zero-sum games whereby two players put forward sets of arguments and get a reward for their combined choices. The value of these games, in the classical game-theoretic sense, can be used to define measures of (quantitative) game-theoretic strength of arguments, which are different depending on whether either or both players have an “agenda” (i.e. an argument they want to be accepted). We show that this general scheme captures as a special instance a previous proposal in the literature (single agenda, attack-only frameworks), and seamlessly supports the definition of a spectrum of novel measures of game-theoretic strength where both players have an agenda and/or bipolar frameworks are considered. We then discuss the applicability of these instances of game-theoretic strength in different contexts and analyse their basic properties

A preliminary study of argumentation frameworks and argumentation schemes that appeal to expert opinion

The research in argumentation has produce systems with a human-like mechanism for commonsense reasoning. One form of repre- senting arguments is called Argumentation Schemes, in which are argu- ment forms that represent inferential structures of arguments used in everyday discourse, and in special contexts like legal argumentation, sci- enti c argumentation, and especially in AI. One type of argumentation scheme corresponds to appeal to Expert Opinion or Position-to-Know argumentation. Position-to-know reasoning is typically used in an infor- mation seeking type of dialogue where one has to depend on a source. Most of such argumentation frameworks are based on Dung's seminal work characterizing Abstract Argumentation Frameworks. In this work we introduce a novel framework, called Expert Argumentation Framework (EAF), extending AF with the capability of modeling the quality of expert associated with the arguments that proposed.Eje: Workshop Agentes y sistemas inteligentes (WASI)Red de Universidades con Carreras en Informática (RedUNCI

An Approach to Argumentation Schemes that Appeal to Expert Opinion

Argumentation is a form of reasoning that deeply resembles the human mechanism for commonsense reasoning. An argumentation scheme is a representational tool for modeling common patterns of reasoning; in particular, it displays the form of an argument by showing how the argument is built using the inferential structures commonly used in everyday discourse. Argument schemes are very useful in contexts such as legal argumentation, scientific argumentation, and especially in Artificial Intelligence applications. One type of argumentation scheme corresponds to appeal to Expert Opinion or Position-to-Know argumentation. Position-to-know reasoning is typically used in an information seeking type of dialogue where one has to depend on a source. Most of such argumentation frameworks are based on Dung’s seminal work characterizing Abstract Argumentation Frameworks. In this work, we introduce a novel framework, called Expert Argumentation Framework (EAF), extending AF with the capability of modeling the quality of expert associated with the arguments that were proposed.La argumentación es una forma de razonamiento que se relaciona profundamente con el mecanismo humano de razonamiento basado en el sentido común. Un esquema de argumentación es una herramienta de representación para modelar patrones comunes de razonamiento. En particular, estos esquemas muestran la forma de un argumento, es decir, cómo se construye el argumento utilizando estructuras inferenciales comúnmente utilizadas en el discurso cotidiano. Los esquemas de argumentación son muy utilizados en contextos como la argumentación legal, argumentación científica y, especialmente, en aplicaciones de Inteligencia Artificial. Un tipo de esquema de argumentación es aquel que apela a la Opinión Experta o Posición de Conocer. El razonamiento basado en la Posición de Conocer es típicamente utilizado en aquellos diálogos de búsqueda de información donde se depende de una fuente calificada. La mayoría de los marcos de argumentación se basan en el trabajo seminal de Dung que caracteriza un Marco de Argumentación Abstracto (MA). En este trabajo, introduciremos un nuevo marco, llamado Marco de Argumentación Experta (MAE), extendiendo el MA con la capacidad de modelar la calidad del experto asociada con los argumentos que este propone.Fil: Budan, Paola D. . Universidad Nacional del Sur; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de Santiago del Estero; ArgentinaFil: Budan, Maximiliano Celmo David. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina. Universidad Nacional del Sur; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de Santiago del Estero; ArgentinaFil: Simari, Guillermo Ricardo. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina. Universidad Nacional del Sur; Argentin

The Dimensions of Argumentative Texts and Their Assessment

The definition and the assessment of the quality of argumentative texts has become an increasingly crucial issue in education, classroom discourse, and argumentation theory. The different methods developed and used in the literature are all characterized by specific perspectives that fail to capture the complexity of the subject matter, which remains ill-defined and not systematically investigated. This paper addresses this problem by building on the four main dimensions of argument quality resulting from the definition of argument and the literature in classroom discourse: dialogicity, accountability, relevance, and textuality (DART). We use and develop the insights from the literature in education and argumentation by integrating the frameworks that capture both the textual and the argumentative nature of argumentative texts. This theoretical background will be used to propose a method for translating the DART dimensions into specific and clear proxies and evaluation criteria

Subjective Logic and Arguing with Evidence

Peer reviewedPreprin

Analytic frameworks for assessing dialogic argumentation in online learning environments

Over the last decade, researchers have developed sophisticated online learning environments to support students engaging in argumentation. This review first considers the range of functionalities incorporated within these online environments. The review then presents five categories of analytic frameworks focusing on (1) formal argumentation structure, (2) normative quality, (3) nature and function of contributions within the dialog, (4) epistemic nature of reasoning, and (5) patterns and trajectories of participant interaction. Example analytic frameworks from each category are presented in detail rich enough to illustrate their nature and structure. This rich detail is intended to facilitate researchers’ identification of possible frameworks to draw upon in developing or adopting analytic methods for their own work. Each framework is applied to a shared segment of student dialog to facilitate this illustration and comparison process. Synthetic discussions of each category consider the frameworks in light of the underlying theoretical perspectives on argumentation, pedagogical goals, and online environmental structures. Ultimately the review underscores the diversity of perspectives represented in this research, the importance of clearly specifying theoretical and environmental commitments throughout the process of developing or adopting an analytic framework, and the role of analytic frameworks in the future development of online learning environments for argumentation

Reasoning by Cases in Structured Argumentation

We extend the $ASPIC^+$ framework for structured argumentation so as to allow applications of the reasoning by cases inference scheme for defeasible arguments. Given an argument with conclusion `$A$ or $B$', an argument based on $A$ with conclusion $C$, and an argument based on $B$ with conclusion $C$, we allow the construction of an argument with conclusion $C$. We show how our framework leads to different results than other approaches in non-monotonic logic for dealing with disjunctive information, such as disjunctive default theory or approaches based on the OR-rule (which allows to derive a defeasible rule `If ($A$ or $B$) then $C$', given two defeasible rules `If $A$ then $C$' and `If $B$ then $C$'). We raise new questions regarding the subtleties of reasoning defeasibly with disjunctive information, and show that its formalization is more intricate than one would presume.Comment: Proceedings of SAC/KRR 201