Computing Argument Preferences and Explanations in Abstract Argumentation

Financial support from The UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) for the grant (EP/P011829/1), Supporting Security Policy with Effective Digital Intervention (SSPEDI) is gratefully acknowledged.Postprin

A Preference-Based Approach to Backbone Computation with Application to Argumentation

The backbone of a constraint satisfaction problem consists of those variables that take the same value in all solutions. Algorithms for determining the backbone of propositional formulas, i.e., Boolean satisfiability (SAT) instances, find various real-world applications. From the knowledge representation and reasoning (KRR) perspective, one interesting connection is that of backbones and the so-called ideal semantics in abstract argumentation. In this paper, we propose a new backbone algorithm which makes use of a "SAT with preferences" solver, i.e., a SAT solver which is guaranteed to output a most preferred satisfying assignment w.r.t. a given preference over literals of the SAT instance at hand. We also show empirically that the proposed approach is specifically effective in computing the ideal semantics of argumentation frameworks, noticeably outperforming an other state-of-the-art backbone solver as well as the winning approach of the recent ICCMA 2017 argumentation solver competition in the ideal semantics track.Peer reviewe

Intrusiveness, Trust and Argumentation: Using Automated Negotiation to Inhibit the Transmission of Disruptive Information

The question of how to promote the growth and diffusion of information has been extensively addressed by a wide research community. A common assumption underpinning most studies is that the information to be transmitted is useful and of high quality. In this paper, we endorse a complementary perspective. We investigate how the growth and diffusion of high quality information can be managed and maximized by preventing, dampening and minimizing the diffusion of low quality, unwanted information. To this end, we focus on the conflict between pervasive computing environments and the joint activities undertaken in parallel local social contexts. When technologies for distributed activities (e.g. mobile technology) develop, both artifacts and services that enable people to participate in non-local contexts are likely to intrude on local situations. As a mechanism for minimizing the intrusion of the technology, we develop a computational model of argumentation-based negotiation among autonomous agents. A key component in the model is played by trust: what arguments are used and how they are evaluated depend on how trustworthy the agents judge one another. To gain an insight into the implications of the model, we conduct a number of virtual experiments. Results enable us to explore how intrusiveness is affected by trust, the negotiation network and the agents' abilities of conducting argumentation

Improving argumentation-based recommender systems through context-adaptable selection criteria

Recommender Systems based on argumentation represent an important proposal where the recommendation is supported by qualitative information. In these systems, the role of the comparison criterion used to decide between competing arguments is paramount and the possibility of using the most appropriate for a given domain becomes a central issue; therefore, an argumentative recommender system that offers an interchangeable argument comparison criterion provides a significant ability that can be exploited by the user. However, in most of current recommender systems, the argument comparison criterion is either fixed, or codified within the arguments. In this work we propose a formalization of context-adaptable selection criteria that enhances the argumentative reasoning mechanism. Thus, we do not propose of a new type of recommender system; instead we present a mechanism that expand the capabilities of existing argumentation-based recommender systems. More precisely, our proposal is to provide a way of specifying how to select and use the most appropriate argument comparison criterion effecting the selection on the user´s preferences, giving the possibility of programming, by the use of conditional expressions, which argument preference criterion has to be used in each particular situation.Fil: Teze, Juan Carlos Lionel. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Bahía Blanca; Argentina. Universidad Nacional del Sur. Departamento de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de Entre Ríos; ArgentinaFil: Gottifredi, Sebastián. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Bahía Blanca; Argentina. Universidad Nacional del Sur. Departamento de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación; ArgentinaFil: García, Alejandro Javier. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Bahía Blanca; Argentina. Universidad Nacional del Sur. Departamento de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación; ArgentinaFil: Simari, Guillermo Ricardo. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Bahía Blanca; Argentina. Universidad Nacional del Sur. Departamento de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación; Argentin

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