2,893 research outputs found
Dealing with Qualitative and Quantitative Features in Legal Domains
In this work, we enrich a formalism for argumentation by including a formal
characterization of features related to the knowledge, in order to capture
proper reasoning in legal domains. We add meta-data information to the
arguments in the form of labels representing quantitative and qualitative data
about them. These labels are propagated through an argumentative graph
according to the relations of support, conflict, and aggregation between
arguments.Comment: arXiv admin note: text overlap with arXiv:1903.0186
Towards an abstract characterization of the subargument relation
Dung’s classic framework is formed by abstract arguments and a binary relation denoting attacks between arguments. Several semantic elaboration and extensions based on this framework are present in the literature. The notion of subargument, however, was not widely studied as an abstract concept although it is an important part of fully implemented argument systems. In this paper we introduce the characterization of properties of a sensible subargument relation in abstract argumentation frameworksWorkshop de Agentes y Sistemas Inteligentes (WASI)Red de Universidades con Carreras en Informática (RedUNCI
Conflicts in abstract argumentation systems
In this work we explore the inclusion of the notion of multiple argument conflicts, those in which two or more arguments are involved.
In formal systems of defeasible argumentation, arguments for and against a proposition are produced and evaluated to verify the acceptability of that proposition.
The development of argumentation systems has grown in the last years [AG95, BV, Dung93, PRAK, Sim92, GS99] but no consensus has been reached yet on some issues, such as the representation of arguments, the way they interact, and the output of that interaction. Even then, the main idea in these systems is that any proposition will be accepted as true if there exists an argument that supports it, and this argument is acceptable according to an analysis between it and its counterarguments. Therefore, in the set of arguments of the system, some of them will be acceptable or justified arguments, while others not.
Almost every system of this kind is based on the notion of binary conflicts between arguments. We consider here the existence of a more complex form of conflict, how to solve it, and the corresponding acceptability semantic.Eje: Inteligencia Artificial Distribuida, Aspectos Teóricos de la Inteligencia Artificial y Teoría de la ComputaciónRed de Universidades con Carreras en Informática (RedUNCI
Dialoguing DeLP-based agents
A multi-agent system is made up of multiple interacting autonomous agents. It can be viewed as a society in which each agent performs its activity cooperating to achieve common goals, or competing for them. They establish dialogues via some kind of agent-communication language, under some communication protocol. We think argumentation is suitable to model several kind of dialogues in multi-agents systems. In this paper we define dialogues and persuasion dialogues between two agents using Defeasible Logic Programs as a knowledge base, together with an algorithm defining how this dialogue may be engaged. We also show an indication of how an agent could use opponent’s information for its own benefit.Eje: AgentesRed de Universidades con Carreras en Informática (RedUNCI
Abstract argumentation and dialogues between agents
A multiagent system (MAS) is made up of multiple interacting autonomous agents. It can be viewed as a society in which each agent performs its activity, cooperating to achieve common goals, or competing for them. Thus, every agent has the ability to do social interactions with other agents establishing dialogues via some kind of agent-communication language, under some communication protocol [6].
Argumentation is suitable to model several kind of dialogues in multi-agents systems. Some authors are actually using defeasible argumentation to model negotiation processes between agents [3, 7]. Our current research activities are related to the use of argumentation in agent’s interaction, such as negotiation among several participants, persuasion, acquisition of knowledge and other forms of social dialogue. Usually, argumentation appears as a mechanism to deal with disagreement between agents, for example when some conflict of interest is present.
Argumentation can be used, not only to argue about something, but to know more about other agents: it is enough powerfull to play an important role in general social interaction in multiagents systems. The kind of arguments used in dialogues, and their relationship, depends on the type of dialogue involved.
According to [8], dialogues can be classified in negotiation, where there is a conflict of interests, persuasion where there is a conflict of opinion or beliefs, indagation where there is a need for an explanation or proof of some proposition, deliberation or coordination where there is a need to coordinate goals and actions, and one special kind of dialogue called eristic based on personal conflicts. Except the last one, all these dialogues may exist in multi-agents systems as part of social activities among agents. Our aim is to define an abstract argumentation framework to capture the behaviour of these different dialogues, and we present here the main ideas behind this task and the new formal definitions. We are not interested in the logic used to construct arguments, nor the comparison method used. Our formulation completely abstracts from the internal structure of the arguments, considering them as moves made in a dialogue.
We also consider multiagent systems as a set of multiple interacting autonomous agents.Eje: Inteligencia artificialRed de Universidades con Carreras en Informática (RedUNCI
An abstract argumentation framework with comparison criterion
We define an abstract argumentation framework that includes a binary symmetric relation representing argument conflicts, and a function used to evaluate conflicting arguments. In this framework it is clear how defeat relations are constructed, even when the arguments are treated abstractly. We also present a basic classification of comparison criterions and its impact on the set of accepted arguments. Finally, we define the concept of improvements of a comparison criterion and its relation with the fallacies presented in the framework.Eje: Agentes y Sistemas Inteligentes (ASI)Red de Universidades con Carreras en Informática (RedUNCI
Capturing the behaviour of inter-agent dialogues
A multiagent system (MAS) is made up of multiple interacting autonomous agents. It can be viewed as a society in which each agent performs its activity, cooperating to achieve common goals, or competing for them. Thus, every agent has the ability to do social interactions with other agents establishing dialogues via some kind of agent-communication language, under some communication protocol [13]. Argumentation has been used to model several kind of dialogues in multi-agents systems, such as negotiation or coordination [1, 7, 8, 5, 9].
Our current research activities are related to the use of argumentation in agent’s interaction, as a form of social dialogue. According to [15], dialogues can be classified in negotiation, where there is a conflict of interests, persuasion where there is a conflict of opinion or beliefs, indagation where there is a need for an explanation or proof of some proposition, deliberation or coordination where there is a need to coordinate goals and actions, and one special kind of dialogue called eristic based on personal conflicts. Except the last one, all this dialogues may exist in multi-agents systems as part of social activities among agents. We also study the use of argumentation formalisms to model the internal process of reasoning of an agent, often called monologues.
Our aim is to define an abstract argumentation framework to capture the behaviour of these different dialogues. We are not interested in the logic used to construct arguments. Our formulation completely abstracts from the internal structure of the arguments, considering them as moves made in a dialogue. We also consider multiagent systems as a set of multiple interacting autonomous agents.Eje: Inteligencia artificial distribuida, aspectos teóricos de la inteligencia artificial y teoría de computaciónRed de Universidades con Carreras en Informática (RedUNCI
Argument comparison criteria analysis
In this work we show a possible form of classification of comparison methods in argumentation systems [AG95,BV,Dung93,PRAK,Sim92]. The main idea in these systems is that any proposition will be accepted as true if there exists an argument that supports it, and this argument is acceptable according to an analysis between it and its counterarguments. This analysis requires a process of comparison of conflicting arguments, in order to decide which one is preferable. After this dialectical analysis in the set of arguments of the system, some of them will be acceptable or justified arguments, while others not. In this classification, the argument comparison method plays a very important role.Eje: Inteligencia Artificial Distribuida, Aspectos Teóricos de la Inteligencia Artificial y Teoría de la ComputaciónRed de Universidades con Carreras en Informática (RedUNCI
Conflicts in abstract argumentation systems
In this work we explore the inclusion of the notion of multiple argument conflicts, those in which two or more arguments are involved.
In formal systems of defeasible argumentation, arguments for and against a proposition are produced and evaluated to verify the acceptability of that proposition.
The development of argumentation systems has grown in the last years [AG95, BV, Dung93, PRAK, Sim92, GS99] but no consensus has been reached yet on some issues, such as the representation of arguments, the way they interact, and the output of that interaction. Even then, the main idea in these systems is that any proposition will be accepted as true if there exists an argument that supports it, and this argument is acceptable according to an analysis between it and its counterarguments. Therefore, in the set of arguments of the system, some of them will be acceptable or justified arguments, while others not.
Almost every system of this kind is based on the notion of binary conflicts between arguments. We consider here the existence of a more complex form of conflict, how to solve it, and the corresponding acceptability semantic.Eje: Inteligencia Artificial Distribuida, Aspectos Teóricos de la Inteligencia Artificial y Teoría de la ComputaciónRed de Universidades con Carreras en Informática (RedUNCI
Towards an abstract characterization of the subargument relation
Dung’s classic framework is formed by abstract arguments and a binary relation denoting attacks between arguments. Several semantic elaboration and extensions based on this framework are present in the literature. The notion of subargument, however, was not widely studied as an abstract concept although it is an important part of fully implemented argument systems. In this paper we introduce the characterization of properties of a sensible subargument relation in abstract argumentation frameworksWorkshop de Agentes y Sistemas Inteligentes (WASI)Red de Universidades con Carreras en Informática (RedUNCI
- …