Dispute Resolution Using Argumentation-Based Mediation

Mediation is a process, in which both parties agree to resolve their dispute by negotiating over alternative solutions presented by a mediator. In order to construct such solutions, mediation brings more information and knowledge, and, if possible, resources to the negotiation table. The contribution of this paper is the automated mediation machinery which does that. It presents an argumentation-based mediation approach that extends the logic-based approach to argumentation-based negotiation involving BDI agents. The paper describes the mediation algorithm. For comparison it illustrates the method with a case study used in an earlier work. It demonstrates how the computational mediator can deal with realistic situations in which the negotiating agents would otherwise fail due to lack of knowledge and/or resources.Comment: 6 page

Petitio principii: the case for non-fallaciousness

This paper presents a case for the non-fallaciousness of petitio principii in the context where the only evidence which can confirm the conclusion of an argument has a content which is identical to the content of the conclusion. The more usual rhetorical and dialectical frameworks for the analysis off allacies are challenged for what I describe as their proscriptive stance. As an alternative to proscription, I recommend an analysis of the context in which petitio arguments occur. Such an analysis, I argue, suggests the relaxation of a priority condition described by Waiton (1985) and the relevance to the present case of Sorensen's (1991) analysis ofthe non-circularity of certain 'P, therefore, P' arguments

Building bridges between doctors and patients: the design and pilot evaluation of a training session in argumentation for chronic pain experts

Shared decision-making requires doctors to be competent in exchanging views with patients to identify the appropriate course of action. In this paper we focus on the potential of a course in argumentation as a promising way to empower doctors in presenting their viewpoints and addressing those of patients. Argumentation is the communication process in which the speaker, through the use of reasons, aims to convince the interlocutor of the acceptability of a viewpoint. The value of argumentation skills for doctors has been addressed in the literature. Yet, there is no research on what a course on argumentation might look like. In this paper, we present the content and format of a training session in argumentation for doctors and discuss some insights gained from a pilot study that examined doctors' perceived strengths and limitations vis-à-vis this training

Advancing the Boundaries of Formal Argumentation: Reflections on the AI3 2021 Special Issue

This article reflects on the Special Issue based on invited papers from the 5th Workshop on Advances in Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence (AI3 2021), showcasing the latest advancements in the field made by the Italian community on argumentation, as well as other researchers worldwide. This Special Issue highlights the importance of advancing logical-based AI approaches, such as formal argumentation, in the continuously expanding landscape of Artificial In- telligence. Papers in this Special Issue cover a diverse range of topics, including argument game-based proof theories, analysis of legal cases, decomposability in abstract argumentation, meta-argumentation approaches, explanations for model outputs using causal models, representation of natural argumentative discourse, and Paraconsistent Weak Kleene logic-based belief revision. By em- phasizing these innovative research contributions, this article underscores the need for continued progress in the field of Formal Argumentation to complement and enhance the ongoing developments in AI

Analysis of Dialogical Argumentation via Finite State Machines

Dialogical argumentation is an important cognitive activity by which agents exchange arguments and counterarguments as part of some process such as discussion, debate, persuasion and negotiation. Whilst numerous formal systems have been proposed, there is a lack of frameworks for implementing and evaluating these proposals. First-order executable logic has been proposed as a general framework for specifying and analysing dialogical argumentation. In this paper, we investigate how we can implement systems for dialogical argumentation using propositional executable logic. Our approach is to present and evaluate an algorithm that generates a finite state machine that reflects a propositional executable logic specification for a dialogical argumentation together with an initial state. We also consider how the finite state machines can be analysed, with the minimax strategy being used as an illustration of the kinds of empirical analysis that can be undertaken.Comment: 10 page