2,270 research outputs found
A Plausibility Semantics for Abstract Argumentation Frameworks
We propose and investigate a simple ranking-measure-based extension semantics
for abstract argumentation frameworks based on their generic instantiation by
default knowledge bases and the ranking construction semantics for default
reasoning. In this context, we consider the path from structured to logical to
shallow semantic instantiations. The resulting well-justified JZ-extension
semantics diverges from more traditional approaches.Comment: Proceedings of the 15th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic
Reasoning (NMR 2014). This is an improved and extended version of the
author's ECSQARU 2013 pape
Empirical Evaluation of Abstract Argumentation: Supporting the Need for Bipolar and Probabilistic Approaches
In dialogical argumentation it is often assumed that the involved parties
always correctly identify the intended statements posited by each other,
realize all of the associated relations, conform to the three acceptability
states (accepted, rejected, undecided), adjust their views when new and correct
information comes in, and that a framework handling only attack relations is
sufficient to represent their opinions. Although it is natural to make these
assumptions as a starting point for further research, removing them or even
acknowledging that such removal should happen is more challenging for some of
these concepts than for others. Probabilistic argumentation is one of the
approaches that can be harnessed for more accurate user modelling. The
epistemic approach allows us to represent how much a given argument is believed
by a given person, offering us the possibility to express more than just three
agreement states. It is equipped with a wide range of postulates, including
those that do not make any restrictions concerning how initial arguments should
be viewed, thus potentially being more adequate for handling beliefs of the
people that have not fully disclosed their opinions in comparison to Dung's
semantics. The constellation approach can be used to represent the views of
different people concerning the structure of the framework we are dealing with,
including cases in which not all relations are acknowledged or when they are
seen differently than intended. Finally, bipolar argumentation frameworks can
be used to express both positive and negative relations between arguments. In
this paper we describe the results of an experiment in which participants
judged dialogues in terms of agreement and structure. We compare our findings
with the aforementioned assumptions as well as with the constellation and
epistemic approaches to probabilistic argumentation and bipolar argumentation
Bipolarity in argumentation graphs: Towards a better understanding
Edited by Benferhat Salem, Philippe LerayInternational audienceDifferent abstract argumentation frameworks have been used for various applications within multi-agents systems. Among them, bipolar frameworks make use of both attack and support relations between arguments. However, there is no single interpretation of the support, and the handling of bipolarity cannot avoid a deeper analysis of the notion of support.In this paper we consider three recent proposals for specializing the support relation in abstract argumentation: the deductive support, the necessary support and the evidential support. These proposals have been developed independently within different frameworks. We restate these proposals in a common setting, which enables us to undertake a comparative study of the modellings obtained for the three variants of the support. We highlight relationships and differences between these variants, namely a kind of duality between the deductive and the necessary interpretations of the support
Towards a framework for computational persuasion with applications in behaviour change
Persuasion is an activity that involves one party trying to induce another party to believe something or to do something. It is an important and multifaceted human facility. Obviously, sales and marketing is heavily dependent on persuasion. But many other activities involve persuasion such as a doctor persuading a patient to drink less alcohol, a road safety expert persuading drivers to not text while driving, or an online safety expert persuading users of social media sites to not reveal too much personal information online. As computing becomes involved in every sphere of life, so too is persuasion a target for applying computer-based solutions. An automated persuasion system (APS) is a system that can engage in a dialogue with a user (the persuadee) in order to persuade the persuadee to do (or not do) some action or to believe (or not believe) something. To do this, an APS aims to use convincing arguments in order to persuade the persuadee. Computational persuasion is the study of formal models of dialogues involving arguments and counterarguments, of user models, and strategies, for APSs. A promising application area for computational persuasion is in behaviour change. Within healthcare organizations, government agencies, and non-governmental agencies, there is much interest in changing behaviour of particular groups of people away from actions that are harmful to themselves and/or to others around them
Generalizations of dung frameworks and their role in formal argumentation
This article provides a short survey of some of the most popular abstract argumentation frameworks available today. The authors present the general idea of abstract argumentation, highlighting the role of abstract frameworks in the argumentation process, and review the original Dung frameworks and their semantics. A discussion of generalizations of these frameworks follows, focusing on structures taking preferences and values into account and approaches in which not only attack but also support relations can be modeled. Finally, the authors review the concept of abstract dialectical frameworks, one of the most general systems for abstract argumentation providing a flexible, principled representation of arbitrary argument relations
Intelligent reports for group decision support systems
The topic of Group Decision Support Systems (GDSS) is a not a recent
one. In fact, it has been studied for the last three decades. In this work, we deal with
the topic of Intelligent Reports in GDSS’ context. A defective interaction between
the system and the decision-maker may lead to the complete failure of the GDSS.
However, the study on how and which kind of information should be exposed to
decision-makers is almost non-existent. Therefore, it is important to create reports
adapted to the specific necessities of each decision-maker so that each one can acknowledge
the advantage to use the system and feel motivated to do so. We believe
that in this work, we approach important points that require special attention when
developing Intelligent Reports. We navigate through all the important factors that
affect decision-makers while making a decision. We detail each point and link them
to all related questions and to which kind of structure an Intelligent Report should
have in order to not compromise the success of the GDSS.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 - 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
Joint attacks and accrual in argumentation frameworks
While modelling arguments, it is often useful to represent joint attacks, i.e., cases where multiple arguments jointly attack another (note that this is different from the case where multiple arguments attack another in isolation). Based on this remark, the notion of joint attacks has been proposed as a useful extension of classical Abstract Argumentation Frameworks, and has been shown to constitute a genuine extension in terms of expressive power. In this chapter, we review various works considering the notion of joint attacks from various perspectives, including abstract and structured frameworks. Moreover, we present results detailing the relation among frameworks with joint attacks and classical argumentation frameworks, computational aspects, and applications of joint attacks. Last but not least, we propose a roadmap for future research on the subject, identifying gaps in current research and important research directions.Fil: Bikakis, Antonis. University College London; Estados UnidosFil: Cohen, Andrea. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Bahía Blanca. Instituto de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación. Universidad Nacional del Sur. Departamento de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación. Instituto de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación; ArgentinaFil: Dvoák, Wolfgang. Technische Universitat Wien; AustriaFil: Flouris, Giorgos. Foundation for Research and Technology; GreciaFil: Parsons, Simon. University of Lincoln; Reino Unid
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
- …