Experimental Assessment of Aggregation Principles in Argumentation-Enabled Collective Intelligence

On the Web, there is always a need to aggregate opinions from the crowd (as in posts, social networks, forums, etc.). Different mechanisms have been implemented to capture these opinions such as Like in Facebook, Favorite in Twitter, thumbs-up/-down, flagging, and so on. However, in more contested domains (e.g., Wikipedia, political discussion, and climate change discussion), these mechanisms are not sufficient, since they only deal with each issue independently without considering the relationships between different claims. We can view a set of conflicting arguments as a graph in which the nodes represent arguments and the arcs between these nodes represent the defeat relation. A group of people can then collectively evaluate such graphs. To do this, the group must use a rule to aggregate their individual opinions about the entire argument graph. Here we present the first experimental evaluation of different principles commonly employed by aggregation rules presented in the literature. We use randomized controlled experiments to investigate which principles people consider better at aggregating opinions under different conditions. Our analysis reveals a number of factors, not captured by traditional formal models, that play an important role in determining the efficacy of aggregation. These results help bring formal models of argumentation closer to real-world application

Interaction of arguments and values. Bridges between Artificial Intelligence and the Psychology of Reasoning

Los modelos de argumentación propuestos desde la Inteligencia Artificial ofrecen simplicidad y precisión para analizar la aceptabilidad de un argumento en interacción con otros. Sin embargo, se presentan dudas a la hora de ponderar su corrección, ya que el carácter, más dialéctico que lógico, de la argumentación impide contar con una semántica formal con la cual relacionarla. Aquí comentaremos los modelos de argumentación basada en valores de Gabbay y de Bench-Capon. Gabbay, por caso, busca implementar la intuición de que enfrentar argumentos que promueven un mismo valor (religioso, político, jurídico, etc.) es más efectivo que hacerlo desde un valor distinto no compartido. Valiéndome de algunos ejemplos tomados de la literatura, mostraré la importancia de tender puentes entre los modelos y datos empíricos que permitan contrastar dicha intuición. Argumentaré que hay problemas tanto conceptuales como representacionales que es necesario atacar, y señalaré algunas líneas de investigación experimental en tales direcciones.The argumentation models proposed from Artificial Intelligence offer simplicity and precision to analyze the acceptability of an argument in interaction with others. However, there are doubts when considering their correctness, since the character, more dialectical than logical, of the argumentation prevents having a formal semantics with which to relate it. Here we will discuss the value-based argumentation models by Gabbay and Bench-Capon. Gabbay, for instance, seeks to implement the intuition that confronting arguments that promote the same value (religious, political, legal, etc.) is more effective than doing it from a different, unshared value. Using some examples taken from the literature, I will show the importance of building bridges between the models and the empirical that enable to contrast such intuition. I will argue that there are both conceptual and representational problems that need to be addressed, and I will point out some lines of experimental research in these directions.Fil: Bodanza, Gustavo Adrian. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Bahía Blanca. Instituto de Investigaciones Económicas y Sociales del Sur. Universidad Nacional del Sur. Departamento de Economía. Instituto de Investigaciones Económicas y Sociales del Sur; Argentin

Who has the last word? Understanding How to Sample Online Discussions

In online debates individual arguments support or attack each other, leading to some subset of arguments being considered more relevant than others. However, in large discussions readers are often forced to sample a subset of the arguments being put forth. Since such sampling is rarely done in a principled manner, users may not read all the relevant arguments to get a full picture of the debate. This paper is interested in answering the question of how users should sample online conversations to selectively favour the currently justified or accepted positions in the debate. We apply techniques from argumentation theory and complex networks to build a model that predicts the probabilities of the normatively justified arguments given their location in online discussions. Our model shows that the proportion of replies that are supportive, the number of replies that comments receive, and the locations of un-replied comments all determine the probability that a comment is a justified argument. We show that when the degree distribution of the number of replies is homogeneous along the discussion, for acrimonious discussions, the distribution of justified arguments depends on the parity of the graph level. In supportive discussions the probability of having justified comments increases as one moves away from the root. For discussion trees that have a non-homogeneous in-degree distribution, for supportive discussions we observe the same behaviour as before, while for acrimonious discussions we cannot observe the same parity-based distribution. This is verified with data obtained from the online debating platform Kialo. By predicting the locations of the justified arguments in reply trees, we can suggest which arguments readers should sample to grasp the currently accepted opinions in such discussions. Our models have important implications for the design of future online debating platforms

Classical logic, argument and dialectic

A well studied instantiation of Dung's abstract theory of argumentation yields argumentation-based characterisations of non-monotonic inference over possibly inconsistent sets of classical formulae. This provides for single-agent reasoning in terms of argument and counter-argument, and distributed non-monotonic reasoning in the form of dialogues between computational and/or human agents. However, features of existing formalisations of classical logic argumentation (Cl-Arg) that ensure satisfaction of rationality postulates, preclude applications of Cl-Arg that account for real-world dialectical uses of arguments by resource-bounded agents. This paper formalises dialectical classical logic argumentation that both satisfies these practical desiderata and is provably rational. In contrast to standard approaches to Cl-Arg we: 1) draw an epistemic distinction between an argument's premises accepted as true, and those assumed true for the sake of argument, so formalising the dialectical move whereby arguments\u2019 premises are shown to be inconsistent, and avoiding the foreign commitment problem that arises in dialogical applications; 2) provide an account of Cl-Arg suitable for real-world use by eschewing the need to check that an argument's premises are subset minimal and consistent, and identifying a minimal set of assumptions as to the arguments that must be constructed from a set of formulae in order to ensure that the outcome of evaluation is rational. We then illustrate our approach with a natural deduction proof theory for propositional classical logic that allows measurement of the \u2018depth\u2019 of an argument, such that the construction of depth-bounded arguments is a tractable problem, and each increase in depth naturally equates with an increase in the inferential capabilities of real-world agents. We also provide a resource-bounded argumentative characterisation of non-monotonic inference as defined by Brewka's Preferred Subtheories

Environnements virtuels émotionnellement intelligents

Les émotions ont été étudiées sous différents angles dans le domaine de l'interaction homme-machine y compris les systèmes tutoriel intelligents, les réseaux sociaux, les plateformes d’apprentissage en ligne et le e-commerce. Beaucoup d’efforts en informatique affective sont investis pour intégrer la dimension émotionnelle dans les environnements virtuels (tel que les jeux vidéo, les jeux sérieux et les environnements de réalité virtuelle ou de réalité augmenté). Toutefois, les stratégies utilisées dans les jeux sont encore empiriques et se basent sur des modèles psychologiques et sociologiques du joueur : Courbe d’apprentissage, gestion de la difficulté, degré d’efficience dans l’évaluation des performances et de la motivation du joueur. Or cette analyse peut malmener le système dans la mesure où les critères sont parfois trop vagues ou ne représentent pas les réelles compétences du joueur, ni ses vraies difficultés. Étant donné que la stratégie d’intervention est très influencée par la précision de l’analyse et l’évaluation du joueur, de nouveaux moyens sont nécessaires afin d’améliorer les processus décisionnels dans les jeux et d’organiser les stratégies d’adaptation de façon optimale. Ce travail de recherche vise à construire une nouvelle approche pour l’évaluation et le suivi du joueur. L’approche permet une modélisation du joueur plus efficace et moins intrusive par l’intégration des états mentaux et affectifs obtenus à partir de senseurs physiologiques (signaux cérébraux, Activité électrodermale, …) ou/et instruments optiques (Webcam, traceur de regard, …). Les états affectifs et mentaux tels que les émotions de base (basées sur les expressions faciales), l’état d’engagement, de motivation et d’attention sont les plus visés dans cette recherche. Afin de soutenir l’adaptation dans les jeux, des modèles des émotions et de la motivation du joueur basé sur ces indicateurs mentaux et affectifs, ont été développés. Nous avons implémenté cette approche en développant un système sous forme d’une architecture modulaire qui permet l’adaptation dans les environnements virtuels selon les paramètres affectifs du joueur détectés en temps-réel par des techniques d’intelligence artificielle.Emotions were studied from different angles in the field of human-machine interaction including intelligent tutorial systems, social networks, online learning platforms and e-commerce. Much effort in affective computing are invested to integrate the emotional dimension in virtual environments (such as video games, serious games and virtual reality environments or augmented reality). However, the strategies used in games are still empirical and are based on psychological and sociological models of the player: Learning Curve, trouble management, degree of efficiency in the evaluation of performance and motivation of the player. But this analysis can mislead the system to the extent that the criteria are sometimes too vague and do not represent the actual skills of the player, nor his real difficulties. Since the intervention strategy is influenced by the accuracy of the analysis and evaluation of the player, new ways are needed to improve decision-making in games and organizing adaptation strategies in optimal way. This research aims to build a new approach to the evaluation and monitoring of the player. The approach enables more effective and less intrusive player modeling through the integration of mental and emotional states obtained from physiological sensors (brain signals, electro-dermal activity, ...) or/and optical instruments (Webcam, eye-tracker, ...). The emotional and mental states such as basic emotions (based on facial expressions), the states of engagement, motivation and attention are the most targeted in this research. In order to support adaptation in games, models of emotions and motivation of the player based on these mental and emotional indicators, have been developed. We have implemented this approach by developing a system in the form of a modular architecture that allows adaptation in virtual environments according to the player's emotional parameters detected in real time by artificial intelligence methods