An Alternative Semantics for Argumentative Systems

Defeasible argumentation is one of the approaches that addresses the challenges arising when we reason defeasibly, with several formalisms in the literature reaching a mature state. Considering that most of these theories eventually shifted their semantics towards dialectical characterizations, we believe that a sufficiently generic model of the process of reasoning in dialectical terms could also serve as an abstract model of what happens inside an argumentative system. To that end, we develop in this article a formal model of dialectical reasoning and explore its role as an alternative semantics for argumentation theories

A framework for multiagent deliberation based on dialectical argumentation

Simply put, a multiagent system can be seen as a collection of autonomous agents that as a whole are able to accomplish goals beyond the reach of any of its members. Agent interaction is widely acknowledged as the feature that provides this added potential. Since many, if not all, of the attractive agent interactions can be recasted as deliberations, a formalization for this process is being actively seek. Deliberations among agents resembles a dialectical process like the one present in many formalizations of defeasible argumentation. This paper exploits that resemblance by defining a framework for multiagent deliberation based on a particular dialectical process borrowed from a well-established system of defeasible argumentation.I Workshop de Agentes y Sistemas Inteligentes (WASI)Red de Universidades con Carreras en Informática (RedUNCI

Towards a semantics for argumentative systems

Defeasible argumentation is one of the approaches that attempt to address the challenges arising when we reason defeasibly, with several formalisms in the literature reaching a mature state. Nowadays, several of them started shifting their semantics towards a dialectical characterization. Therefore, we believe that a sufficiently generic model of the process of dialectical reasoning could also serve as an abstract model of what happens inside an argumentative systems. To that end, in this article we lay the foundations required for such a generic model, proposing a line of research whose central objective is attaining that abstract semantics for argumentative systems.Eje: Agentes y Sistemas InteligentesRed de Universidades con Carreras en Informática (RedUNCI

An abstract model for the process of deliberation within multiagent systems

A multiagent system is no more than a collection of interacting autonomous agents. However, this interaction allows the system as a whole to perform tasks beyond the reach of its individual members. This clearly accounts for the boost in research geared towards pro tting from this interaction. Accordingly, this paper addresses the formal modeling of a common kind of interaction known as deliberation. Simply put, a group of agents deliberate whenever they need to come to a mutually accepted position on some matter. The proposed model stems from the newly developed trend of reinterpreting agent interactions as an exchange of arguments in the context of some theory of defeasible argumentation.Eje: Sistemas inteligentesRed de Universidades con Carreras en Informática (RedUNCI

Workshop on Defeasible Reasoning with Specificity and Multiple Inheritance

A workshop on defeasible reasoning with specificity was held in under the Arch in St. Louis during April 1989, with support fro AAAI and McDonnell Douglas, and the assistance of Rockwell Science Center Palo Alto and the Department of Computer Science of Washington University. The document includes a report on the proceedings and parts of the workshop notes that can be distributed. These include the schedule, lists of participants, synopses of systems, and benchmark problems

Hypotheses and their dynamics in legal argumentation

We investigate some legal interpretation techniques from the viewpoint of the Argentinian jurisprudence. This allows the proposal of a logical framework –from a computer science perspective– for modeling such specific reasoning techniques towards an appropriate construction of legal arguments. Afterwards, we study the usage of assumptions towards construction of hypotheses. This is proposed in the dynamic context of legal procedures, where the referred argumentation framework evolves as part of the investigation instance prior to the trial. We propose belief revision operators to handle such dynamics, preserving a coherent behavior with regards to the legal interpretation used. Abduction is finally proposed to construct systematic hypothesization, with the objective to bring semi-automatic recommendations to push forward the investigation of a legal case

A methodology for knowledge representation in defeasible logic programming

Humans have always been intrigued by their ability to reason. We have constantly attempted to emulate this process, trying almost everything, from physiological explanations, to sociological accounts. The approach with possibly the longest tradition conceives this process as a mere manipulation of symbols. Yet, symbolic reasoning cannot be applied directly over the problem at hand: we require that the knowledge about that domain be also described symbolically, where this description is in turn the outcome of the process called Knowledge Representation. Defeasible Logic Programming (DeLP) is a formalism that by combining Logic Programming with Defeasible Argumentation is able to represent incomplete and potentially contradictory information. Its ability to represent this kind of informartion make it suitable for describing many real world situations, where its inference engine can then later be used to solve concrete problems in those scenarios. In this article we propose a formal methodology, striving to standardize the process of knowledge representation in DeLP, that defines a set of guidelines to be used during this key task.Red de Universidades con Carreras en Informática (RedUNCI

An abstract model for the process of deliberation within multiagent systems

A multiagent system is no more than a collection of interacting autonomous agents. However, this interaction allows the system as a whole to perform tasks beyond the reach of its individual members. This clearly accounts for the boost in research geared towards pro tting from this interaction. Accordingly, this paper addresses the formal modeling of a common kind of interaction known as deliberation. Simply put, a group of agents deliberate whenever they need to come to a mutually accepted position on some matter. The proposed model stems from the newly developed trend of reinterpreting agent interactions as an exchange of arguments in the context of some theory of defeasible argumentation.Eje: Sistemas inteligentesRed de Universidades con Carreras en Informática (RedUNCI

Towards a semantics for argumentative systems

Defeasible argumentation is one of the approaches that attempt to address the challenges arising when we reason defeasibly, with several formalisms in the literature reaching a mature state. Nowadays, several of them started shifting their semantics towards a dialectical characterization. Therefore, we believe that a sufficiently generic model of the process of dialectical reasoning could also serve as an abstract model of what happens inside an argumentative systems. To that end, in this article we lay the foundations required for such a generic model, proposing a line of research whose central objective is attaining that abstract semantics for argumentative systems.Eje: Agentes y Sistemas InteligentesRed de Universidades con Carreras en Informática (RedUNCI

A framework for multiagent deliberation based on dialectical argumentation

Simply put, a multiagent system can be seen as a collection of autonomous agents that as a whole are able to accomplish goals beyond the reach of any of its members. Agent interaction is widely acknowledged as the feature that provides this added potential. Since many, if not all, of the attractive agent interactions can be recasted as deliberations, a formalization for this process is being actively seek. Deliberations among agents resembles a dialectical process like the one present in many formalizations of defeasible argumentation. This paper exploits that resemblance by defining a framework for multiagent deliberation based on a particular dialectical process borrowed from a well-established system of defeasible argumentation.I Workshop de Agentes y Sistemas Inteligentes (WASI)Red de Universidades con Carreras en Informática (RedUNCI