ABAplus: Attack Reversal in Abstract and Structured Argumentation with Preferences

We present ABAplus, a system that implements reasoning with the argumentation formalism ABA+. ABA+ is a structured argumentation formalism that extends Assumption-Based Argumentation (ABA) with preferences and accounts for preferences via attack reversal. ABA+ also admits as instance Preference-based Argumentation which accounts for preferences by reversing attacks in abstract argumentation (AA). ABAplus readily implements attack reversal in both AA and ABAstyle structured argumentation. ABAplus affords computation, visualisation and comparison of extensions under five argumentation semantics. It is available both as a stand-alone system and as a web application

Resolving conflicts in clinical guidelines using argumentation

Automatically reasoning with conflicting generic clinical guidelines is a burning issue in patient-centric medical reasoning where patient-specific conditions and goals need to be taken into account. It is even more challenging in the presence of preferences such as patient's wishes and clinician's priorities over goals. We advance a structured argumentation formalism for reasoning with conflicting clinical guidelines, patient-specific information and preferences. Our formalism integrates assumption-based reasoning and goal-driven selection among reasoning outcomes. Specifically, we assume applicability of guideline recommendations concerning the generic goal of patient well-being, resolve conflicts among recommendations using patient's conditions and preferences, and then consider prioritised patient-centered goals to yield non-conflicting, goal-maximising and preference-respecting recommendations. We rely on the state-of-the-art Transition-based Medical Recommendation model for representing guideline recommendations and augment it with context given by the patient's conditions, goals, as well as preferences over recommendations and goals. We establish desirable properties of our approach in terms of sensitivity to recommendation conflicts and patient context

Computer-supported collaborative argumentation

http://www.di.unipi.it/~morge/publis/morge04cnma.pdfInternational audienceIn this paper, we propose a computer-supported collaborative argumentation for the public debate. For this purpose, we use the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), that can be viewed as an argumentation-based decision-making process, to help stakeholders to build an argumentation schema and to express preferences about it. Considering this multi-criteria decision-making as an argumentationbased decision-making, we construct a dialogue system of agents with reasoning abilities to support the group decision. Each user is assisted by an agent representing him in automated dialogues. Therefore, the system provides tools for the collaborative development of the argumentation schemas on one hand and to check the consistency or the inconsistency among preferences between two users allowing the conflicts and the consensus seeking on the other hand

Case-Based Argumentation Framework. Reasoning Process

The capability of reaching agreements is a necessary feature that large computer systems where agents interoperate must include. In these systems, agents represent self-motivated entities that have a social context, including dependency relations among them, and different preferences and beliefs. Without agreement there is no cooperation and thus, complex tasks which require the interaction of agents with different points of view cannot be performed. In this work, we follow a case-based argumentation approach for the design and implementation of Multi-Agent Systems where agents reach agreements by arguing and improve their argumentation skills from experience. A set of knowledge resources and a reasoning process that agents can use to manage their positions and arguments are presented.Heras Barberá, SM.; Botti Navarro, VJ.; Julian Inglada, VJ. (2011). Case-Based Argumentation Framework. Reasoning Process. http://hdl.handle.net/10251/1109

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

Strategies in Case-Based Argumentation-Based Negotiation: An Application for the Tourism Domain

[EN] Negotiation is a key solution to find an agreement between conflicting parties especially during the purchase journey. This paper treats the negotiations between a travel agency and its customers in the domain of tourism. Both automated negotiation and argumentation are gathered to create a framework for automated agents, presenting a travel agency and its customers, to negotiate a trip and exchange arguments. Agents take advantage of their past experiences and use Case-Based Reasoning to select the best strategy to follow. We represent agents using two types of profiles, Argumentative profile that represents agents¿ ways of reasoning and Preference profile that embodies customers¿ preferences in the domain of tourism.Bouslama, R.; Jordán, J.; Heras, S.; Amor, NB. (2020). Strategies in Case-Based Argumentation-Based Negotiation: An Application for the Tourism Domain. Springer. 205-217. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-51999-5_17S205217Aamodt, A., Plaza, E.: Case-based reasoning: foundational issues, methodological variations, and system approaches. AI Commun. 7(1), 39–59 (1994)Adnan, M.H.M., Hassan, M.F., Aziz, I., Paputungan, I.V.: Protocols for agent-based autonomous negotiations: a review. In: ICCOINS, pp. 622–626. IEEE (2016)Amgoud, L., Parsons, S.: Agent dialogues with conflicting preferences. In: Meyer, J.-J.C., Tambe, M. (eds.) ATAL 2001. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2333, pp. 190–205. Springer, Heidelberg (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45448-9_14Amgoud, L., Prade, H.: Generation and evaluation of different types of arguments in negotiation. In: NMR, pp. 10–15 (2004)Bouslama, R., Ayachi, R., Ben Amor, N.: A new generic framework for argumentation-based negotiation using case-based reasoning. In: Medina, J., et al. (eds.) IPMU 2018. CCIS, vol. 854, pp. 633–644. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91476-3_52Bouslama, R., Ayachi, R., Ben Amor, N.: A new generic framework for mediated multilateral argumentation-based negotiation using case-based reasoning. In: Kern-Isberner, G., Ognjanović, Z. (eds.) ECSQARU 2019. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 11726, pp. 14–26. Springer, Cham (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29765-7_2Dimopoulos, Y., Moraitis, P.: Advances in argumentation based negotiation. In: Negotiation and Argumentation in Multi-agent Systems: Fundamentals, Theories, Systems and Applications, pp. 82–125 (2014)Hadidi, N., Dimopoulos, Y., Moraitis, P.: Tactics and concessions for argumentation-based negotiation. In: Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2012, vol. 245, pp. 285–296 (2012)Hadoux, E., Hunter, A.: Strategic sequences of arguments for persuasion using decision trees. In: AAAI (2017)Heras, S., Jordán, J., Botti, V., Julián, V.: Argue to agree: a case-based argumentation approach. IJAR 54(1), 82–108 (2013)Heras, S., Jordán, J., Botti, V., Julián, V.: Case-based strategies for argumentation dialogues in agent societies. Inf. Sci. 223, 1–30 (2013)Jennings, N.R., Faratin, P., Lomuscio, A.R., Parsons, S., Sierra, C., Wooldridge, M.: Automated negotiation: prospects, methods and challenges. Int. J. Group Decis. Negot. 10(2), 199–215 (2001)Lazar, C.M.: Internet-an aid for e-tourism. Ecoforum J. 8(1), 1–4 (2019)Lopes, F., Novais, A.Q., Coelho, H.: Bilateral negotiation in a multi-agent energy market. In: Huang, D.-S., Jo, K.-H., Lee, H.-H., Kang, H.-J., Bevilacqua, V. (eds.) ICIC 2009. LNCS, vol. 5754, pp. 655–664. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-04070-2_71Park, S., Tussyadiah, I., Mazanec, J., Fesenmaier, D.: Travel personae of american pleasure travelers: a network analysis. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 27, 797–811 (2010)Rahwan, I., Ramchurn, S.D., Jennings, N.R., Mcburney, P., Parsons, S., Sonenberg, L.: Argumentation-based negotiation. KER 18(4), 343–375 (2003)Rahwan, I., Sonenberg, L., McBurney, P.: Bargaining and argument-based negotiation: some preliminary comparisons. In: Rahwan, I., Moraïtis, P., Reed, C. (eds.) ArgMAS 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3366, pp. 176–191. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-32261-0_12Sierra, C., Jennings, N.R., Noriega, P., Parsons, S.: A framework for argumentation-based negotiation. In: Singh, M.P., Rao, A., Wooldridge, M.J. (eds.) ATAL 1997. LNCS, vol. 1365, pp. 177–192. Springer, Heidelberg (1998). https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0026758Soh, L.K., Tsatsoulis, C.: Agent-based argumentative negotiations with case-based reasoning. In: AAAI Fall Symposium Series on Negotiation Methods for Autonomous Cooperative Systems, pp. 16–25 (2001)Sycara, K.P.: Persuasive argumentation in negotiation. Theory Decis. 28(3), 203–242 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00162699Walton, D.: Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning. Routledge, Abingdon (2013

Argue to agree: A case-based argumentation approach

[EN] The capability of reaching agreements is a necessary feature that large computer systems where agents interoperate must include. In these systems, agents represent self-motivated entities that have a social context, including dependency relations among them, and different preferences and beliefs. Without agreement there is no cooperation and thus, complex tasks which require the interaction of agents with different points of view cannot be performed. In this work, we propose a case-based argumentation approach for Multi-Agent Systems where agents reach agreements by arguing and improve their argumentation skills from experience. A set of knowledge resources and a reasoning process that agents can use to manage their positions and arguments are presented. These elements are implemented and validated in a customer support application.This work is supported by the Spanish government grants [CONSOLIDER-INGENIO 2010 CSD2007-00022, TIN2008-04446, and TIN2009-13839-C03-01] and by the GVA project [PROMETEO 2008/051].Heras Barberá, SM.; Jordán Prunera, JM.; Botti, V.; Julian Inglada, VJ. (2013). Argue to agree: A case-based argumentation approach. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning. 54(1):82-108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijar.2012.06.005S8210854

Properties of ABA+ for Non-Monotonic Reasoning

We investigate properties of ABA+, a formalism that extends the well studied structured argumentation formalism Assumption-Based Argumentation (ABA) with a preference handling mechanism. In particular, we establish desirable properties that ABA+ semantics exhibit. These pave way to the satisfaction by ABA+ of some (arguably) desirable principles of preference handling in argumentation and nonmonotonic reasoning, as well as non-monotonic inference properties of ABA+ under various semantics.Comment: This is a revised version of the paper presented at the worksho