An Infrastructure for Argumentative Agents

Multiagent systems are suitable for providing a framework that allows agents to perform collaborative processes in a social context. Furthermore, argumentation is a natural way of reaching agreements between several parties. However, it is difficult to find infrastructures of argumentation offering support for agent societies and their social context. Offering support for agent societies allows representation of more realistic environments to have argumentation dialogues. We propose an infrastructure to develop and execute argumentative agents in an open multiagent system. It offers tools to develop agents with argumentation capabilities. It also offers support for agent societies and their social context. The infrastructure is publicly available. Also, it has been implemented in an application scenario where argumentative agents try to reach an agreement about the best solution to solve a problem reported to the system.This work is supported by the Spanish government grants CONSOLIDER INGENIO 2010 CSD2007-00022, MINECO/FEDER TIN2012-36586-C03-01, and TIN2011-27652-C03-01.Jordan Prunera, JM.; Heras Barberá, SM.; Valero Cubas, S.; Julian Inglada, VJ. (2014). An Infrastructure for Argumentative Agents. Computational Intelligence. 31(3):418-441. doi:10.1111/coin.12030S41844131

Case-based argumentation infrastructure for agent societies

In this work, we propose an infrastructure to develop and execute argumentative agents in an open multi-agent system. This infrastructure offers the necessary components to develop agents with argumentation capabilities, including the communication skills and the argumentation protocol, and it offers support for agent societies and their agents' social context. The main advantage of having this infrastructure is that it is possible to create agents with argumentation capabilities to resolve a specified problem. In the argumentation dialogue the agents try to reach an agreement about the best solution to apply for each proposed problem. The proposed infrastructure has been validated with a real example and it has been evaluated obtaining, with argumentation strategies, better performance than other reasoning approaches that do not include argumentation.Jordán Prunera, JM. (2011). Case-based argumentation infrastructure for agent societies. http://hdl.handle.net/10251/15362Archivo delegad

ArguBlogging:an application for the Argument Web

In this paper, we present a software tool for ‘ArguBlogging’, which allows users to construct debate and discussions across blogs, linking existing and new online resources to form distributed, structured conversations. Arguments and counterarguments can be posed by giving opinions on one’s own blog and replying to other bloggers’ posts. The resulting argument structure is connected to the Argument Web, in which argumentative structures are made semantically explicit and machine-processable. We discuss the ArguBlogging tool and the underlying infrastructure and ontology of the Argument Web

Sensemaking on the Pragmatic Web: A Hypermedia Discourse Perspective

The complexity of the dilemmas we face on an organizational, societal and global scale forces us into sensemaking activity. We need tools for expressing and contesting perspectives flexible enough for real time use in meetings, structured enough to help manage longer term memory, and powerful enough to filter the complexity of extended deliberation and debate on an organizational or global scale. This has been the motivation for a programme of basic and applied action research into Hypermedia Discourse, which draws on research in hypertext, information visualization, argumentation, modelling, and meeting facilitation. This paper proposes that this strand of work shares a key principle behind the Pragmatic Web concept, namely, the need to take seriously diverse perspectives and the processes of meaning negotiation. Moreover, it is argued that the hypermedia discourse tools described instantiate this principle in practical tools which permit end-user control over modelling approaches in the absence of consensus

Practical reasoning in political discourse: The UK government's response to the economic crisis in the 2008 Pre-Budget Report

This article focuses on practical reasoning in political discourse and argues for a better integration of argumentation theory with critical discourse analysis (CDA). Political discourse and its specific genres (for example, deliberation) primarily involve forms of practical reasoning, typically oriented towards finding solutions to problems and deciding on future courses of action. Practical reasoning is a form of inference from cognitive and motivational premises: from what we believe (about the situation or about means—end relations) and what we want or desire (our goals and values), leading to a normative judgement (and often a decision) concerning action. We offer an analysis of the main argument in the UK government’s 2008 Pre-Budget Report (HM Treasury, 2008) and suggest how a critical evaluation of the argument from the perspective of a normative theory of argumentation (particularly the informal logic developed by Douglas Walton) can provide the basis for an evaluation in terms of characteristic CDA concerns. We are advancing this analysis as a contribution to CDA, aimed at increasing the rigour and systematicity of its analyses of political discourse, and as a contribution to the normative concerns of critical social science

Proceedings ICPW'07: 2nd International Conference on the Pragmatic Web, 22-23 Oct. 2007, Tilburg: NL

Proceedings ICPW'07: 2nd International Conference on the Pragmatic Web, 22-23 Oct. 2007, Tilburg: N

Debating Technology for Dialogical Argument:Sensemaking, Engagement and Analytics

Debating technologies, a newly emerging strand of research into computational technologies to support human debating, offer a powerful way of providing naturalistic, dialogue-based interaction with complex information spaces. The full potential of debating technologies for dialogical argument can, however, only be realized once key technical and engineering challenges are overcome, namely data structure, data availability, and interoperability between components. Our aim in this article is to show that the Argument Web, a vision for integrated, reusable, semantically rich resources connecting views, opinions, arguments, and debates online, offers a solution to these challenges. Through the use of a running example taken from the domain of citizen dialogue, we demonstrate for the first time that different Argument Web components focusing on sensemaking, engagement, and analytics can work in concert as a suite of debating technologies for rich, complex, dialogical argument

Trust Strategies for the Semantic Web

Everyone agrees on the importance of enabling trust on the SemanticWebto ensure more efficient agent interaction. Current research on trust seems to focus on developing computational models, semantic representations, inference techniques, etc. However, little attention has been given to the plausible trust strategies or tactics that an agent can follow when interacting with other agents on the Semantic Web. In this paper we identify five most common strategies of trust and discuss their envisaged costs and benefits. The aim is to provide some guidelines to help system developers appreciate the risks and gains involved with each trust strategy