On the integration of trust with negotiation, argumentation and semantics

Agreement Technologies are needed for autonomous agents to come to mutually acceptable agreements, typically on behalf of humans. These technologies include trust computing, negotiation, argumentation and semantic alignment. In this paper, we identify a number of open questions regarding the integration of computational models and tools for trust computing with negotiation, argumentation and semantic alignment. We consider these questions in general and in the context of applications in open, distributed settings such as the grid and cloud computing. © 2013 Cambridge University Press.This work was partially supported by the Agreement Technology COST action (IC0801). The authors would like to thank for helpful discussions and comments all participants in the panel on >Trust, Argumentation and Semantics> on 16 December 2009, Agia Napa, CyprusPeer Reviewe

Challenges for a CBR framework for argumentation in open MAS

[EN] Nowadays, Multi-Agent Systems (MAS) are broadening their applications to open environments, where heterogeneous agents could enter into the system, form agents’ organizations and interact. The high dynamism of open MAS gives rise to potential conflicts between agents and thus, to a need for a mechanism to reach agreements. Argumentation is a natural way of harmonizing conflicts of opinion that has been applied to many disciplines, such as Case-Based Reasoning (CBR) and MAS. Some approaches that apply CBR to manage argumentation in MAS have been proposed in the literature. These improve agents’ argumentation skills by allowing them to reason and learn from experiences. In this paper, we have reviewed these approaches and identified the current contributions of the CBR methodology in this area. As a result of this work, we have proposed several open issues that must be taken into consideration to develop a CBR framework that provides the agents of an open MAS with arguing and learning capabilities.This work was partially supported by CONSOLIDER-INGENIO 2010 under grant CSD2007-00022 and by the Spanish government and FEDER funds under TIN2006-14630-C0301 project.Heras Barberá, SM.; Botti Navarro, VJ.; Julian Inglada, VJ. (2009). Challenges for a CBR framework for argumentation in open MAS. Knowledge Engineering Review. 24(4):327-352. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0269888909990178S327352244Willmott S. , Vreeswijk G. , Chesñevar C. , South M. , McGinnis J. , Modgil S. , Rahwan I. , Reed C. , Simari G. 2006. Towards an argument interchange format for multi-agent systems. In Proceedings of the AAMAS International Workshop on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems, ArgMAS-06, 17–34.Sycara, K. P. (1990). Persuasive argumentation in negotiation. Theory and Decision, 28(3), 203-242. doi:10.1007/bf00162699Ontañón S. , Plaza E. 2006. Arguments and counterexamples in case-based joint deliberation. In AAMAS-06 Workshop on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems, ArgMAS-06, 36–53.Sadri F. , Toni F. , Torroni P. 2001. Dialogues for negotiation: agent varieties and dialogue sequences. In Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages, ATAL-01, Intelligent Agents VIII 2333, 405–421. Springer.Fox J. , Parsons S. 1998. Arguing about beliefs and actions. In Applications of Uncertainty Formalisms, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1455, 266–302. Springer.Dung, P. M. (1995). On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence, 77(2), 321-357. doi:10.1016/0004-3702(94)00041-xAulinas M. , Tolchinsky P. , Turon C. , Poch M. , Cortés U. 2007. Is my spill environmentally safe? Towards an integrated management of wastewater in a river basin using agents that can argue. In 7th International IWA Symposium on Systems Analysis and Integrated Assessment in Water Management. Washington DC, USA.Amgoud L. 2003. A formal framework for handling conflicting desires. In Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2711, 552–563. Springer.Armengol E. , Plaza E. 2001. Lazy induction of descriptions for relational case-based learning. In European Conference on Machine Learning, ECML-01, 13–24.Sørmo, F., Cassens, J., & Aamodt, A. (2005). Explanation in Case-Based Reasoning–Perspectives and Goals. Artificial Intelligence Review, 24(2), 109-143. doi:10.1007/s10462-005-4607-7RAHWAN, I., RAMCHURN, S. D., JENNINGS, N. R., McBURNEY, P., PARSONS, S., & SONENBERG, L. (2003). Argumentation-based negotiation. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 18(4), 343-375. doi:10.1017/s0269888904000098Brüninghaus S. , Ashley K. D. 2001. Improving the representation of legal case texts with information extraction methods. In 7th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, ICAIL-01, 42–51.Parsons, S. (1998). Agents that reason and negotiate by arguing. Journal of Logic and Computation, 8(3), 261-292. doi:10.1093/logcom/8.3.261Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T., & Mcburney, P. (2005). A Dialogue Game Protocol for Multi-Agent Argument over Proposals for Action. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 11(2), 153-171. doi:10.1007/s10458-005-1166-xBrüninghaus S. , Ashley K. D. 2003. Predicting the outcome of case-based legal arguments. In 9th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, ICAIL-03, 233–242.Modgil S. , Tolchinsky P. , Cortés U. 2005. Towards formalising agent argumentation over the viability of human organs for transplantation. In 4th Mexican International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, MICAI-05, 928–938.Tolchinsky P. , Atkinson K. , McBurney P. , Modgil S. , Cortés U. 2007. Agents deliberating over action proposals using the ProCLAIM model. In 5th International Central and Eastern European Conference on Multi-Agent Systems, CEEMAS-07, 32–41.Prakken, H., & Sartor, G. (1998). Artificial Intelligence and Law, 6(2/4), 231-287. doi:10.1023/a:1008278309945Gordon T. F. , Karacapilidis N. 1997. The Zeno argumentation framework. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, ICAIL-97, ACM Press, 10–18.Tolchinsky P. , Modgil S. , Cortés U. 2006a. Argument schemes and critical questions for heterogeneous agents to argue over the viability of a human organ. In AAAI Spring Symposium Series; Argumentation for Consumers of Healthcare, 377–384.Aleven V. , Ashley K. D. 1997. Teaching case-based argumentation through a model and examples, empirical evaluation of an intelligent learning environment. In 8th World Conference of the Artificial Intelligence in Education Society, 87–94.Rahwan, I. (2005). Guest Editorial: Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 11(2), 115-125. doi:10.1007/s10458-005-3079-0RISSLAND, E. L., ASHLEY, K. D., & BRANTING, L. K. (2005). Case-based reasoning and law. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 20(3), 293-298. doi:10.1017/s0269888906000701Tolchinsky, P., Cortes, U., Modgil, S., Caballero, F., & Lopez-Navidad, A. (2006). Increasing Human-Organ Transplant Availability: Argumentation-Based Agent Deliberation. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 21(6), 30-37. doi:10.1109/mis.2006.116McBurney, P., Hitchcock, D., & Parsons, S. (2006). The eightfold way of deliberation dialogue. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 22(1), 95-132. doi:10.1002/int.20191Rissland, E. L., Ashley, K. D., & Loui, R. P. (2003). AI and Law: A fruitful synergy. Artificial Intelligence, 150(1-2), 1-15. doi:10.1016/s0004-3702(03)00122-xSoh, L.-K., & Tsatsoulis, C. (2005). A Real-Time Negotiation Model and A Multi-Agent Sensor Network Implementation. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 11(3), 215-271. doi:10.1007/s10458-005-0539-5Capobianco, M., Chesñevar, C. I., & Simari, G. R. (2005). Argumentation and the Dynamics of Warranted Beliefs in Changing Environments. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 11(2), 127-151. doi:10.1007/s10458-005-1354-8Tolchinsky P. , Modgil S. , Cortés U. , Sànchez-Marrè M. 2006b. CBR and argument schemes for collaborative decision making. In Conference on Computational Models of Argument, COMMA-06, 144, 71–82. IOS Press.Ossowski S. , Julian V. , Bajo J. , Billhardt H. , Botti V. , Corchado J. M. 2007. Open issues in open MAS: an abstract architecture proposal. In Conferencia de la Asociacion Española para la Inteligencia Artificial, CAEPIA-07, 2, 151–160.Karacapilidis, N., & Papadias, D. (2001). Computer supported argumentation and collaborative decision making: the HERMES system. Information Systems, 26(4), 259-277. doi:10.1016/s0306-4379(01)00020-5Aamodt A. 2004. Knowledge-intensive case-based reasoning in Creek. In 7th European Conference on Case-Based Reasoning ECCBR-04, 1–15.Jakobovits H. , Vermeir D. 1999. Dialectic semantics for argumentation frameworks. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, ICAIL-99, ACM Press, 53–62.Díaz-Agudo, B., & González-Calero, P. A. (s. f.). An Ontological Approach to Develop Knowledge Intensive CBR Systems. Ontologies, 173-213. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-37022-4_7Reed C. , Walton D. 2005. Towards a formal and implemented model of argumentation schemes in agent communication. In Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop in Multi-Agent Systems, ArgMAS-04, 173–188.Sycara K. 1989. Argumentation: planning other agents’ plans. In 11th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1, 517–523. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc.Bench-Capon, T. J. M., & Dunne, P. E. (2007). Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Artificial Intelligence, 171(10-15), 619-641. doi:10.1016/j.artint.2007.05.001Reiter, R. (1980). A logic for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 13(1-2), 81-132. doi:10.1016/0004-3702(80)90014-4Amgoud L. , Kaci S. 2004. On the generation of bipolar goals in argumentation-based negotiation. In 1st International Workshop on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems, ArgMAS, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 3366, 192–207. Springer.CHESÑEVAR, C., MCGINNIS, MODGIL, S., RAHWAN, I., REED, C., SIMARI, G., … WILLMOTT, S. (2006). Towards an argument interchange format. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 21(4), 293-316. doi:10.1017/s0269888906001044Rahwan I. , Amgoud L. 2006. An argumentation-based approach for practical reasoning. In Proceedings of the 5th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, AAMAS-06, ACM Press, 347–354.Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155-169. doi:10.1007/bf01405730Soh L.-K. , Tsatsoulis C. 2001b. Reflective negotiating agents for real-time multisensor target tracking. In International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-01, 1121–1127.Eemeren, F. H. van, & Grootendorst, R. (1984). Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions. doi:10.1515/9783110846089Rissland E. L. , Skalak D. B. , Friedman M. T. 1993. Bankxx: a program to generate argument through case-based search. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, ICAIL-93, 117–124.Sycara K. 1987. Resolving Adversarial Conflicts: An Approach Integrating Case-Based and Analytic Methods, PhD thesis, School of Information and Computer Science. Georgia Institute of Technology.Ontañón S. , Plaza E. 2007. Learning and joint deliberation through argumentation in multi-agent systems. In International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, AAMAS-07, 971–978.Rissland, E. L., & Skalak, D. B. (1991). CABARET: rule interpretation in a hybrid architecture. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 34(6), 839-887. doi:10.1016/0020-7373(91)90013-wDaniels J. J. , Rissland E. L. 1997. Finding legally relevant passages in case opinions. In 6th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, ICAIL-97, 39–47.Brüninghaus S. , Ashley K. D. 2005. Generating legal arguments and predictions from case texts. In 10th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, ICAIL-05, 65–74.Simari G. R. , García A. J. , Capobianco M. 2004. Actions, planning and defeasible reasoning. In Proceedings of the 10th International Workshop on Non-monotonic Reasoning, NMR-04, 377–384.Soh L.-K. , Tsatsoulis C. 2001a. Agent-based argumentative negotiations with case-based reasoning. In AAAI Fall Symposium on Negotiation Methods for Autonomous Cooperative Systems, 16–25.Ashley, K. D. (1991). Reasoning with cases and hypotheticals in HYPO. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 34(6), 753-796. doi:10.1016/0020-7373(91)90011-uHulstijn J. , van der Torre L. 2004, Combining goal generation and planning in an argumentation framework. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Argument, Dialogue and Decision. International Workshop on Non-monotonic Reasoning, NMR-04, 212–218.Karacapilidis N. , Trousse B. , Papadias D. 1997. Using case-based reasoning for argumentation with multiple viewpoints. In 2nd International Conference on Case-Based Reasoning, ICCBR-97, 541–552.Branting, L. K. (1991). Building explanations from rules and structured cases. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 34(6), 797-837. doi:10.1016/0020-7373(91)90012-

Argumentation dialogues in web-based GDSS: an approach using machine learning techniques

Tese de doutoramento em InformaticsA tomada de decisão está presente no dia a dia de qualquer pessoa, mesmo que muitas vezes ela não tenha consciência disso. As decisões podem estar relacionadas com problemas quotidianos, ou podem estar relacionadas com questões mais complexas, como é o caso das questões organizacionais. Normalmente, no contexto organizacional, as decisões são tomadas em grupo. Os Sistemas de Apoio à Decisão em Grupo têm sido estudados ao longo das últimas décadas com o objetivo de melhorar o apoio prestado aos decisores nas mais diversas situações e/ou problemas a resolver. Existem duas abordagens principais à implementação de Sistemas de Apoio à Decisão em Grupo: a abordagem clássica, baseada na agregação matemática das preferências dos diferentes elementos do grupo e as abordagens baseadas na negociação automática (e.g. Teoria dos Jogos, Argumentação, entre outras). Os atuais Sistemas de Apoio à Decisão em Grupo baseados em argumentação podem gerar uma enorme quantidade de dados. O objetivo deste trabalho de investigação é estudar e desenvolver modelos utilizando técnicas de aprendizagem automática para extrair conhecimento dos diálogos argumentativos realizados pelos decisores, mais concretamente, pretende-se criar modelos para analisar, classificar e processar esses dados, potencializando a geração de novo conhecimento que será utilizado tanto por agentes inteligentes, como por decisiores reais. Promovendo desta forma a obtenção de consenso entre os membros do grupo. Com base no estudo da literatura e nos desafios em aberto neste domínio, formulou-se a seguinte hipótese de investigação - É possível usar técnicas de aprendizagem automática para apoiar diálogos argumentativos em Sistemas de Apoio à Decisão em Grupo baseados na web. No âmbito dos trabalhos desenvolvidos, foram aplicados algoritmos de classificação supervisionados a um conjunto de dados contendo argumentos extraídos de debates online, criando um classificador de frases argumentativas que pode classificar automaticamente (A favor/Contra) frases argumentativas trocadas no contexto da tomada de decisão. Foi desenvolvido um modelo de clustering dinâmico para organizar as conversas com base nos argumentos utilizados. Além disso, foi proposto um Sistema de Apoio à Decisão em Grupo baseado na web que possibilita apoiar grupos de decisores independentemente de sua localização geográfica. O sistema permite a criação de problemas multicritério e a configuração das preferências, intenções e interesses de cada decisor. Este sistema de apoio à decisão baseado na web inclui os dashboards de relatórios inteligentes que são gerados através dos resultados dos trabalhos alcançados pelos modelos anteriores já referidos. A concretização de cada um dos objetivos permitiu validar as questões de investigação identificadas e assim responder positivamente à hipótese definida.Decision-making is present in anyone’s daily life, even if they are often unaware of it. Decisions can be related to everyday problems, or they can be related to more complex issues, such as organizational issues. Normally, in the organizational context, decisions are made in groups. Group Decision Support Systems have been studied over the past decades with the aim of improving the support provided to decision-makers in the most diverse situations and/or problems to be solved. There are two main approaches to implementing Group Decision Support Systems: the classical approach, based on the mathematical aggregation of the preferences of the different elements of the group, and the approaches based on automatic negotiation (e.g. Game Theory, Argumentation, among others). Current argumentation-based Group Decision Support Systems can generate an enormous amount of data. The objective of this research work is to study and develop models using automatic learning techniques to extract knowledge from argumentative dialogues carried out by decision-makers, more specifically, it is intended to create models to analyze, classify and process these data, enhancing the generation of new knowledge that will be used both by intelligent agents and by real decision-makers. Promoting in this way the achievement of consensus among the members of the group. Based on the literature study and the open challenges in this domain, the following research hypothesis was formulated - It is possible to use machine learning techniques to support argumentative dialogues in web-based Group Decision Support Systems. As part of the work developed, supervised classification algorithms were applied to a data set containing arguments extracted from online debates, creating an argumentative sentence classifier that can automatically classify (For/Against) argumentative sentences exchanged in the context of decision-making. A dynamic clustering model was developed to organize conversations based on the arguments used. In addition, a web-based Group Decision Support System was proposed that makes it possible to support groups of decision-makers regardless of their geographic location. The system allows the creation of multicriteria problems and the configuration of preferences, intentions, and interests of each decision-maker. This web-based decision support system includes dashboards of intelligent reports that are generated through the results of the work achieved by the previous models already mentioned. The achievement of each objective allowed validation of the identified research questions and thus responded positively to the defined hypothesis.I also thank to Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, for the Ph.D. grant funding with the reference: SFRH/BD/137150/2018

Practical reasoning as a generalized decision making problem

LAMSADE : Laboratoire d'analyse et modélisation de systèmes pour l'aide à la décisionInternational audienceDecision making, often viewed as a form of reasoning toward action, has been considered from different points of view. Classical decision theory, as developed by economists, has focused mainly on identifying criteria such as expected utility for comparing different alternatives. The inputs of this approach are a set of feasible atomic actions, and a function that assesses the value of their consequences when the actions are performed in a given state. One of the main practical limitation of this approach is the fact that it reduces the whole decision problem to the availability of two functions: a probability distribution and a utility function. This is why some researchers in AI have advocated the need for a different approach in which all the aspects that may be involved in a decision problem (such as the desires of an agent, the feasibility of actions, etc) are explicitly represented. Hence, BDI architectures have been developed. They take their inspiration in the work of philosophers who have advocated practical reasoning. Practical reasoning mainly deals with the adoption, filling in, and reconsideration of intentions. However, these approaches suffer from a lack of a clear formulation of decision rules that combine the above qualitative concepts to decide which action to perform. In this paper, we argue that practical reasoning is a generalized decision making problem. The basic idea is that instead of comparing atomic actions, one has to compare sets of actions. The preferred set of actions becomes the intentions of the agent. The paper presents a unified setting that benefits from the advantages of the three above-mentioned approaches (classical decision, 15 BDI, practical reasoning). More precisely, we propose a formal framework that takes as input a set of beliefs, a set of conditional desires, and a set of rules stating how desires can be achieved, and returns a consistent subset of desires as well as ways/actions for achieving them. Such actions are called intentions. Indeed, we show that these intentions are generated via some decision rules. Thus, depending on whether the agent has an optimistic or a pessimistic attitude, the set of intentions may not be the same.La prise de décision, souvent vue comme une forme de raisonnement sur les actions, a été considérée de différents points de vue. La théorie classique de la décision, développée principalement par des économistes, s’est concentrée sur l’identification et la justification de critères, tels que l’utilité espérée, pour comparer différentes alternatives. Cette approche prend en entrée un ensemble d’actions qui sont atomiques faisables, et une fonction qui évalue les conséquences de chaque action. Un trait remarquable mais aussi une limitation de cette approche est la réduction du problème de décision à la disponibilité de deux fonctions : une fonction de distribution de probabilité et une fonction d’utilité. C’est pourquoi certains chercheurs en IA ont préconisé le besoin d’une approche dans laquelle tous les aspects qui interviennent dans un problème de décision(tels que les désirs d’un agent, la faisabilité desactions, etc..) sont explicitement représentés. Dans cette perspective, des architectures BDI (Beliefs, Desires, Intentions) ont été proposées. Elles prennent leur inspiration dans le travail de philosophes sur ce que les anglo-saxons nomment practical reasoning ou le "raisonnement pratique". Le raisonnement pratique traite principalement de la pertinence au contexte, de la faisabilité et finalement des intentions retenues et exécutables. Cependant, ces approches souffrent d’un manque de formulation claire de règles de décision qui combinent les considérations ci-dessus pour décider quelle action exécuter. Dans cet article, nous montrons que le raisonnement pratique est un problème de la prise de décision généralisé. L’idée fondamentale est qu’au lieu de comparer des actions atomiques, on compare des ensembles d’actions. L’ensemble préféré d’actions devient les intentions retenues par l’un agent. Le papier présente un cadre unifié qui bénéficie des avantages des trois approches (décision classique, architectures BDI, l’idée générales du raisonnement pratique). Plus précisément, nous proposons un cadre formel qui prend en entrée un ensemble de croyances, un ensemble de désirs conditionnels, et un ensemble de règles précisant comment des désirs peuvent être réalisés, et renvoie en sortie un sous-ensemble cohérent de désirs ainsi que les actions pour les réaliser. De telles actions s’appellent les intentions. En effet,nous montrons que ces intentions sont choisies par l’intermédiaire de quelques règles de décision. Ainsi, selon que l’agent ait une attitude optimisteou pessimiste, l’ensemble des intentions peut ne pas être le même

Combining Norms, Roles, Dependence and Argumentation in Agreement Technologies

A major challenge for Agreement Technologies is the combination of existing technologies and rea- soning methods. In this paper we focus on the three core layers of the Agreement Technologies tower, called Norms, Organization and Argumentation. We present a framework for arguing about agreements based on norms, roles and dependence, together with a case study from the sharing economy

Computational Argumentation for the Automatic Analysis of Argumentative Discourse and Human Persuasion

Tesis por compendio[ES] La argumentación computacional es el área de investigación que estudia y analiza el uso de distintas técnicas y algoritmos que aproximan el razonamiento argumentativo humano desde un punto de vista computacional. En esta tesis doctoral se estudia el uso de distintas técnicas propuestas bajo el marco de la argumentación computacional para realizar un análisis automático del discurso argumentativo, y para desarrollar técnicas de persuasión computacional basadas en argumentos. Con estos objetivos, en primer lugar se presenta una completa revisión del estado del arte y se propone una clasificación de los trabajos existentes en el área de la argumentación computacional. Esta revisión nos permite contextualizar y entender la investigación previa de forma más clara desde la perspectiva humana del razonamiento argumentativo, así como identificar las principales limitaciones y futuras tendencias de la investigación realizada en argumentación computacional. En segundo lugar, con el objetivo de solucionar algunas de estas limitaciones, se ha creado y descrito un nuevo conjunto de datos que permite abordar nuevos retos y investigar problemas previamente inabordables (e.g., evaluación automática de debates orales). Conjuntamente con estos datos, se propone un nuevo sistema para la extracción automática de argumentos y se realiza el análisis comparativo de distintas técnicas para esta misma tarea. Además, se propone un nuevo algoritmo para la evaluación automática de debates argumentativos y se prueba con debates humanos reales. Finalmente, en tercer lugar se presentan una serie de estudios y propuestas para mejorar la capacidad persuasiva de sistemas de argumentación computacionales en la interacción con usuarios humanos. De esta forma, en esta tesis se presentan avances en cada una de las partes principales del proceso de argumentación computacional (i.e., extracción automática de argumentos, representación del conocimiento y razonamiento basados en argumentos, e interacción humano-computador basada en argumentos), así como se proponen algunos de los cimientos esenciales para el análisis automático completo de discursos argumentativos en lenguaje natural.[CA] L'argumentació computacional és l'àrea de recerca que estudia i analitza l'ús de distintes tècniques i algoritmes que aproximen el raonament argumentatiu humà des d'un punt de vista computacional. En aquesta tesi doctoral s'estudia l'ús de distintes tècniques proposades sota el marc de l'argumentació computacional per a realitzar una anàlisi automàtic del discurs argumentatiu, i per a desenvolupar tècniques de persuasió computacional basades en arguments. Amb aquestos objectius, en primer lloc es presenta una completa revisió de l'estat de l'art i es proposa una classificació dels treballs existents en l'àrea de l'argumentació computacional. Aquesta revisió permet contextualitzar i entendre la investigació previa de forma més clara des de la perspectiva humana del raonament argumentatiu, així com identificar les principals limitacions i futures tendències de la investigació realitzada en argumentació computacional. En segon lloc, amb l'objectiu de sol$\cdot$lucionar algunes d'aquestes limitacions, hem creat i descrit un nou conjunt de dades que ens permet abordar nous reptes i investigar problemes prèviament inabordables (e.g., avaluació automàtica de debats orals). Conjuntament amb aquestes dades, es proposa un nou sistema per a l'extracció d'arguments i es realitza l'anàlisi comparativa de distintes tècniques per a aquesta mateixa tasca. A més a més, es proposa un nou algoritme per a l'avaluació automàtica de debats argumentatius i es prova amb debats humans reals. Finalment, en tercer lloc es presenten una sèrie d'estudis i propostes per a millorar la capacitat persuasiva de sistemes d'argumentació computacionals en la interacció amb usuaris humans. D'aquesta forma, en aquesta tesi es presenten avanços en cada una de les parts principals del procés d'argumentació computacional (i.e., l'extracció automàtica d'arguments, la representació del coneixement i raonament basats en arguments, i la interacció humà-computador basada en arguments), així com es proposen alguns dels fonaments essencials per a l'anàlisi automàtica completa de discursos argumentatius en llenguatge natural.[EN] Computational argumentation is the area of research that studies and analyses the use of different techniques and algorithms that approximate human argumentative reasoning from a computational viewpoint. In this doctoral thesis we study the use of different techniques proposed under the framework of computational argumentation to perform an automatic analysis of argumentative discourse, and to develop argument-based computational persuasion techniques. With these objectives in mind, we first present a complete review of the state of the art and propose a classification of existing works in the area of computational argumentation. This review allows us to contextualise and understand the previous research more clearly from the human perspective of argumentative reasoning, and to identify the main limitations and future trends of the research done in computational argumentation. Secondly, to overcome some of these limitations, we create and describe a new corpus that allows us to address new challenges and investigate on previously unexplored problems (e.g., automatic evaluation of spoken debates). In conjunction with this data, a new system for argument mining is proposed and a comparative analysis of different techniques for this same task is carried out. In addition, we propose a new algorithm for the automatic evaluation of argumentative debates and we evaluate it with real human debates. Thirdly, a series of studies and proposals are presented to improve the persuasiveness of computational argumentation systems in the interaction with human users. In this way, this thesis presents advances in each of the main parts of the computational argumentation process (i.e., argument mining, argument-based knowledge representation and reasoning, and argument-based human-computer interaction), and proposes some of the essential foundations for the complete automatic analysis of natural language argumentative discourses.This thesis has been partially supported by the Generalitat Valenciana project PROME- TEO/2018/002 and by the Spanish Government projects TIN2017-89156-R and PID2020- 113416RB-I00.Ruiz Dolz, R. (2023). Computational Argumentation for the Automatic Analysis of Argumentative Discourse and Human Persuasion [Tesis doctoral]. Universitat Politècnica de València. https://doi.org/10.4995/Thesis/10251/194806Compendi