Conflicts in abstract argumentation systems

In this work we explore the inclusion of the notion of multiple argument conflicts, those in which two or more arguments are involved. In formal systems of defeasible argumentation, arguments for and against a proposition are produced and evaluated to verify the acceptability of that proposition. The development of argumentation systems has grown in the last years [AG95, BV, Dung93, PRAK, Sim92, GS99] but no consensus has been reached yet on some issues, such as the representation of arguments, the way they interact, and the output of that interaction. Even then, the main idea in these systems is that any proposition will be accepted as true if there exists an argument that supports it, and this argument is acceptable according to an analysis between it and its counterarguments. Therefore, in the set of arguments of the system, some of them will be acceptable or justified arguments, while others not. Almost every system of this kind is based on the notion of binary conflicts between arguments. We consider here the existence of a more complex form of conflict, how to solve it, and the corresponding acceptability semantic.Eje: Inteligencia Artificial Distribuida, Aspectos Teóricos de la Inteligencia Artificial y Teoría de la ComputaciónRed de Universidades con Carreras en Informática (RedUNCI

Modeling multiagent deliberation from an abstract standpoint

Simply put, a multiagent system can be understood as a collection of autonomous agents able to accomplish as a whole goals beyond the capabilities of any of its members. The traditional example depicts a heavy armchair that can be easily lifted by coordinating the effort of a group of persons despite that none of them would have been able to pick it up alone. Thus, one might argue that precisely the agent interaction is boosting the system performance. Since this interaction comes in several flavors, the literature has already explored notions such as agent coordination, cooperation, and collaboration in the context of multiagent systems. This extended abstract outlines our own understanding on this matter, summarizing the evolution of an abstract model for the particular kind of agent interaction known as deliberation. A group of agents deliberate whenever they need to come to a mutually accepted position about some issue. This interaction among agents has drawn our attention given its ubiquity: we believe that complex interactions such as coordination or cooperation might be attained as a result of accruing one or more deliberations. Our proposal is inspired after the novel trend of reinterpreting agent interaction as if it were the result of an argumentation process. For instance, several authors [2,3,5,13,14] have recently considered recasting the main aspects of multiagent negotiation in terms of defeasible argumentation. We follow a like approach in developing our model after a set of dialectical concepts borrowed from that same area. Our approach also strives for generality, mainly after Dung's ample success with his notion of argumentative framework due to its abstract nature. In consequence, we too have decided to pursue an abstract model.Eje: Inteligencia Artificial Distribuida, Aspectos Teóricos de la Inteligencia Artificial y Teoría de la ComputaciónRed de Universidades con Carreras en Informática (RedUNCI

Conflicts in abstract argumentation systems

In this work we explore the inclusion of the notion of multiple argument conflicts, those in which two or more arguments are involved. In formal systems of defeasible argumentation, arguments for and against a proposition are produced and evaluated to verify the acceptability of that proposition. The development of argumentation systems has grown in the last years [AG95, BV, Dung93, PRAK, Sim92, GS99] but no consensus has been reached yet on some issues, such as the representation of arguments, the way they interact, and the output of that interaction. Even then, the main idea in these systems is that any proposition will be accepted as true if there exists an argument that supports it, and this argument is acceptable according to an analysis between it and its counterarguments. Therefore, in the set of arguments of the system, some of them will be acceptable or justified arguments, while others not. Almost every system of this kind is based on the notion of binary conflicts between arguments. We consider here the existence of a more complex form of conflict, how to solve it, and the corresponding acceptability semantic.Eje: Inteligencia Artificial Distribuida, Aspectos Teóricos de la Inteligencia Artificial y Teoría de la ComputaciónRed de Universidades con Carreras en Informática (RedUNCI

On the effect of dynamic environments in defeasible reasoning

The design of intelligent agents has become a key issue for many interesting applications. Given that there is no universally accepted definition of intelligence, Russell developed the notion of rational agency as an alternative for the characterization of intelligent agency [11]. In short, an agent is said to be rational if it performs the right actions according to the information it possesses and the goals it wants to achieve.Eje: Inteligencia Artificial Distribuida, Aspectos Teóricos de la Inteligencia Artificial y Teoría de la ComputaciónRed de Universidades con Carreras en Informática (RedUNCI

Argument comparison criteria analysis

In this work we show a possible form of classification of comparison methods in argumentation systems [AG95,BV,Dung93,PRAK,Sim92]. The main idea in these systems is that any proposition will be accepted as true if there exists an argument that supports it, and this argument is acceptable according to an analysis between it and its counterarguments. This analysis requires a process of comparison of conflicting arguments, in order to decide which one is preferable. After this dialectical analysis in the set of arguments of the system, some of them will be acceptable or justified arguments, while others not. In this classification, the argument comparison method plays a very important role.Eje: Inteligencia Artificial Distribuida, Aspectos Teóricos de la Inteligencia Artificial y Teoría de la ComputaciónRed de Universidades con Carreras en Informática (RedUNCI

The logic of law: high expectations and some disappointments

Traducción de Pablo E. NavarroPartiendo de la controversia entre S. Haack y E. Bulygin acerca de la lógica en el Derecho, el artículo analiza las perspectivas de usar herramientas lógicas para desarrollar modelos de la actividad de la interpretación del Derecho. Se contraponen dos concepciones de Derecho, ligándolas a diferentes representaciones lógicas: i) el Derecho como sistema de reglas correlacionado con la lógica deóntica y la lógica de revisión de creencias/normas, y ii) el Derecho como una actividad interpretativa/argumentativa vinculada con la argumentación derrotable. Usando la distinción entre lógicas de cualificación y lógicas de excepción, el artículo propone una reconciliación de ambas tradiciones, trazando un camino informal para la integración de esas herramientas lógicas. Allí se defiende una visión acerca del papel de la lógica en el Derecho que entraña más expectativas optimistas que las admitidas por Bulygin y también algunas desilusiones respecto a la propuesta de Haack.Departing from the controversy between S. Haack and E. Bulygin about logic in the law, this paper discusses perspectives of using logical tools for modeling the activity of legal interpretation. It opposes two conceptions of law linking each to different logical representations: i) law as a system of rules linked to deontic logic and logic of belief/normative revision and ii) law as an interpretive/argumentative activity linked to logic of defeasible argumentation. Using a distinction between logics of qualification and logics of exception the paper then proposes a conciliation of both traditions sketching informally a way to integrate these logical tools. It defends a more optimistic view on logic in the law with greater expectations than that of Bulygin and with fewer delusions than those expressed by Haack

Logical properties in defeasible logic programming -a preliminary report

Logics for nonmonotonic reasoning have often been described by the property they lack-that is, monotonicity-instead of by those they do enjoy. These theories flourished in the early `80s in response to the inconveniences incomplete and changing information posed to classic, monotonic approaches. Several nonmonotonic formalisms were introduced in the literature: inheritance networks, default logic, preferential entailment, autoepistemic logic, and defeasible argumentation among others. The introduction of these proposals in a short span of time made it difficult to decide which approach is best suited for a given context.Eje: Aspectos teóricos de inteligencia artificialRed de Universidades con Carreras en Informática (RedUNCI

Characterizing defeat in observation-based defeasible logic programming

In this work we analyze the problem of incorporating specificity to characterize defeat in a particular argumentative framework, called observation based defeasible logic programming (ODeLP) [1]. Eficiency is an important issues in ODeLP, since this framework has been de ned for representing the knowledge of intelligent agents in real world applications. Computing specificity using domain knowledge is a demanding operation. Thus, have devised a new version of this criterion, that optimizes the computation of the defeat relation.Eje: Inteligencia artificial distribuida, aspectos teóricos de la inteligencia artificial y teoría de computaciónRed de Universidades con Carreras en Informática (RedUNCI

Strong Admissibility Revisited

Preprin

Preferences and Unrestricted Rebut

Preprin