Deliberation, Practical Reasoning and Problem-solving

We present a series of realistic examples of deliberation and discuss how they can form the basis for building a typology of deliberation dialogues. The observations from our examples are used to suggest that argumentation researchers and philosophers have been thinking about deliberation in overly simplistic ways. We argue that to include all the kinds of argumentation that make up realistic deliberations, it is necessary to distinguish between different kinds of deliberations. We propose a model including a problem-solving type of deliberation based on practical reasoning, characterised by revisions of the initial issue made necessary by the agents’ increased knowledge of new circumstances

What should we do? : computational representation of persuasive argument in practical reasoning

EThOS - Electronic Theses Online ServiceGBUnited Kingdo

A formalisation and prototype implementation of argumentation for statistical model selection

© 2019 – IOS Press and the authors. The task of data collection is becoming routine in many disciplines and this results in increased availability of data. This routinely collected data provides a valuable opportunity for analysis with a view to support evidence based decision making. In order to confidently leverage the data in support of decision making the most appropriate statistical method needs to be selected, and this can be difficult for an end user not trained in statistics. This paper outlines an application of argumentation to support the analysis of clinical data, that uses Extended Argumentation Frameworks in order to reason with the meta-level arguments derived from preference contexts relevant to the data and the analysis objective of the end user. We outline a formalisation of the argument scheme for statistical model selection, its critical questions and the structure of the knowledge base required to support the instantiation of the arguments and meta-level arguments through the use of Z notation. This paper also describes the prototype implementation of argumentation for statistical model selection based on the Z specification outlined herein.CONSULT EPSRC grant no. EP-P010105-1

Modelling dialogues in agent societies

Besides the simpler ability to interact, open multi-agent systems must include mechanisms for their agents to reach agreements by taking into account their social context. Argumentation provides multi-agent systems with a framework that assures a rational communication, which allows agents to reach agreements when conflicts of opinion arise. In this paper, we present the dialogue protocol that agents of a case-based argumentation framework can use to interact when they engage in argumentation dialogues. The syntax and semantics of the argumentation protocol are formalised and discussed. To illustrate our proposal, we have applied the protocol in the context of a water market. By using our dialogue protocol, agents represent water users that are able to explore different water allocations and justify their views about what is the best water distribution in a certain environment.This work is supported by the Spanish government Grants CONSOLIDER INGENIO 2010 CSD2007-00022, MINECO/FEDER TIN2012-36586-C03-01, and MICINN TIN2011-27652-C03-01.Heras Barberá, SM.; Botti Navarro, VJ.; Julian Inglada, VJ. (2014). Modelling dialogues in agent societies. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence. 34:208-226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2014.06.003S2082263

Argumentation-based Reasoning about Plans, Maintenance Goals and Norms

Peer reviewedPostprin

Improving Practical Reasoning and Argumentation

This thesis justifies the need for and develops a new integrated model of practical reasoning and argumentation. After framing the work in terms of what is reasonable rather than what is rational (chapter 1), I apply the model for practical argumentation analysis and evaluation provided by Fairclough and Fairclough (2012) to a paradigm case of unreasonable individual practical argumentation provided by mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik (chapter 2). The application shows that by following the model, Breivik is relatively easily able to conclude that his reasoning to mass murder is reasonable – which is understood to be an unacceptable result. Causes for the model to allow such a conclusion are identified as conceptual confusions ingrained in the model, a tension in how values function within the model, and a lack of creativity from Breivik. Distinguishing between dialectical and dialogical, reasoning and argumentation, for individual and multiple participants, chapter 3 addresses these conceptual confusions and helps lay the foundation for the design of a new integrated model for practical reasoning and argumentation (chapter 4). After laying out the theoretical aspects of the new model, it is then used to re-test Breivik’s reasoning in light of a developed discussion regarding the motivation for the new place and role of moral considerations (chapter 5). The application of the new model shows ways that Breivik could have been able to conclude that his practical argumentation was unreasonable and is thus argued to have improved upon the Fairclough and Fairclough model. It is acknowledged, however, that since the model cannot guarantee a reasonable conclusion, improving the critical creative capacity of the individual using it is also of paramount importance (chapter 6). The thesis concludes by discussing the contemporary importance of improving practical reasoning and by pointing to areas for further research (chapter 7)

Case-Based Argumentation in Agent Societies

Hoy en día los sistemas informáticos complejos se pueden ven en términos de los servicios que ofrecen y las entidades que interactúan para proporcionar o consumir dichos servicios. Los sistemas multi-agente abiertos, donde los agentes pueden entrar o salir del sistema, interactuar y formar grupos (coaliciones de agentes u organizaciones) de forma dinámica para resolver problemas, han sido propuestos como una tecnología adecuada para implementar este nuevo paradigma informático. Sin embargo, el amplio dinamismo de estos sistemas requiere que los agentes tengan una forma de armonizar los conflictos que surgen cuando tienen que colaborar y coordinar sus actividades. En estas situaciones, los agentes necesitan un mecanismo para argumentar de forma eficiente (persuadir a otros agentes para que acepten sus puntos de vista, negociar los términos de un contrato, etc.) y poder llegar a acuerdos. La argumentación es un medio natural y efectivo para abordar los conflictos y contradicciones del conocimiento. Participando en diálogos argumentativos, los agentes pueden llegar a acuerdos con otros agentes. En un sistema multi-agente abierto, los agentes pueden formar sociedades que los vinculan a través de relaciones de dependencia. Estas relaciones pueden surgir de sus interacciones o estar predefinidas por el sistema. Además, los agentes pueden tener un conjunto de valores individuales o sociales, heredados de los grupos a los que pertenecen, que quieren promocionar. Las dependencias entre los agentes y los grupos a los que pertenecen y los valores individuales y sociales definen el contexto social del agente. Este contexto tiene una influencia decisiva en la forma en que un agente puede argumentar y llegar a acuerdos con otros agentes. Por tanto, el contexto social de los agentes debería tener una influencia decisiva en la representación computacional de sus argumentos y en el proceso de gestión de argumentos.Heras Barberá, SM. (2011). Case-Based Argumentation in Agent Societies [Tesis doctoral no publicada]. Universitat Politècnica de València. https://doi.org/10.4995/Thesis/10251/12497Palanci

Deliberation and Decision Making Online: Evaluating Platform Design

This thesis explores the potential of ICT and online communication to deepen democracy and support large scale online deliberation. It draws together the most promising current practices in online deliberation, presenting a theoretical and empirical exploration of innovative online deliberation platforms. ICT and online communication is increasingly sophisticated and ubiquitous in public life yet its democratic impact is ambiguous. Online engagement is characterised by low quality, disorganised deliberation. Experimental platforms have emerged which utilise novel design, argument visualisation, and machine learning to support large scale deliberation. The fields of informal logic and collective intelligence have been influential on the developments of these platforms. But the platforms and the perspectives that influence them have been neglected by wider research into online deliberation. The thesis seeks to address the question: to what extent can developments in informal logic and collective intelligence address problems in the theory and practice of online deliberation? The theoretical analysis explores the insights that emerge from a comparison of the approaches of informal logic, collective intelligence and deliberative democratic theory. Models of argumentation and reasonableness from collective intelligence and informal logic reveal ways in which deliberative theory is under-defined, as well as providing techniques to structure, support and analyse deliberative processes. The empirical element draws together and analyses the experiences of online deliberation practitioners to provide a deeper understanding of the opportunities and challenges ICT presents for democracy. These novel technologies indicate how challenges associated with knowledge coordination, participant behaviour and information overload can be ameliorated. Yet analysis of the platforms also identifies resourcing, recruitment, collective attention and the application of AI as barriers to developing effective online deliberative spaces