Arguing and negotiating in the presence of social influences

Postprin

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

A Parameterised Hierarchy of Argumentation Semantics for Extended Logic Programming and its Application to the Well-founded Semantics

Argumentation has proved a useful tool in defining formal semantics for assumption-based reasoning by viewing a proof as a process in which proponents and opponents attack each others arguments by undercuts (attack to an argument's premise) and rebuts (attack to an argument's conclusion). In this paper, we formulate a variety of notions of attack for extended logic programs from combinations of undercuts and rebuts and define a general hierarchy of argumentation semantics parameterised by the notions of attack chosen by proponent and opponent. We prove the equivalence and subset relationships between the semantics and examine some essential properties concerning consistency and the coherence principle, which relates default negation and explicit negation. Most significantly, we place existing semantics put forward in the literature in our hierarchy and identify a particular argumentation semantics for which we prove equivalence to the paraconsistent well-founded semantics with explicit negation, WFSX$_p$. Finally, we present a general proof theory, based on dialogue trees, and show that it is sound and complete with respect to the argumentation semantics.Comment: To appear in Theory and Practice of Logic Programmin

A Bayesian Argumentation Framework for Distributed Fault Diagnosis in Telecommunication Networks

Traditionally, fault diagnosis in telecommunication network management is carried out by humans who use software support systems. The phenomenal growth in telecommunication networks has nonetheless triggered the interest in more autonomous approaches, capable of coping with emergent challenges such as the need to diagnose faults' root causes under uncertainty in geographically-distributed environments, with restrictions on data privacy. In this paper, we present a framework for distributed fault diagnosis under uncertainty based on an argumentative framework for multi-agent systems. In our approach, agents collaborate to reach conclusions by arguing in unpredictable scenarios. The observations collected from the network are used to infer possible fault root causes using Bayesian networks as causal models for the diagnosis process. Hypotheses about those fault root causes are discussed by agents in an argumentative dialogue to achieve a reliable conclusion. During that dialogue, agents handle the uncertainty of the diagnosis process, taking care of keeping data privacy among them. The proposed approach is compared against existing alternatives using benchmark multi-domain datasets. Moreover, we include data collected from a previous fault diagnosis system running in a telecommunication network for one and a half years. Results show that the proposed approach is suitable for the motivational scenario

Profiles of Dialogue: A Method of Argument Fault Diagnosis and Repair

This paper builds the profiles of dialogue tool into a fault diagnosis method that can be applied to problematic examples of argumentation such as those involving informal fallacies. The profiles method works by comparing a descriptive graph with a normative graph. The descriptive graph represents how a dialogue sequence actually went in the example chosen for analysis. The normative graph represents an analysis of how the sequence should ideally proceed, according to the protocols (rules) for this type of dialogue. The descriptive graph is mapped into the normative graph, so that a comparison can be made to diagnose the fault in the sequence displayed in the descriptive graph and repair it

Dynamic argumentation in UbiGDSS

"First Online: 17 August 2017"Supporting and representing the group decision-making process is a complex task that requires very specific aspects. The current existing argumentation models cannot make good use of all the advantages inherent to group decision-making. There is no monitoring of the process or the possibility to provide dynamism to it. These issues can compromise the success of Group Decision Support Systems if those systems are not able to provide freedom and all necessary mechanisms to the decision-maker. We investigate the use of argumentation in a completely new perspective that will allow for a mutual understanding between agents and decision-makers. Besides this, our proposal allows to define an agent not only according to the preferences of the decisionmaker but also according to his interests towards the decision-making process. We show that our definition respects the requirements that are essential for groups to interact without limitations and that can take advantage of those interactions to create valuable knowledge to support more and better.This work has been supported by COMPETE Programme (operational programme for competitiveness) within project POCI-01-0145-FEDER-007043, by National Funds through the FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology) within the Projects UID/CEC/00319/2013, UID/EEA/00760/2013, and the João Carneiro PhD grant with the reference SFRH/BD/89697/2012.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Combining Explanation and Argumentation in Dialogue

Explanation and argumentation can be used together in such a way that evidence, in the form of arguments, is used to support explanations. In a hybrid system, the interlocking of argument and explanation compounds the problem of how to differentiate between them. The distinction is imperative if we want to avoid the mistake of treating something as fallacious while it is not. Furthermore, the two forms of reasoning may influence dialogue protocol and strategy. In this paper a basis for solving the problem is proposed using a dialogue model where the context of the dialogue is used to distinguish argument from explanation