Abstract Argumentation / Persuasion / Dynamics

The act of persuasion, a key component in rhetoric argumentation, may be viewed as a dynamics modifier. We extend Dung's frameworks with acts of persuasion among agents, and consider interactions among attack, persuasion and defence that have been largely unheeded so far. We characterise basic notions of admissibilities in this framework, and show a way of enriching them through, effectively, CTL (computation tree logic) encoding, which also permits importation of the theoretical results known to the logic into our argumentation frameworks. Our aim is to complement the growing interest in coordination of static and dynamic argumentation.Comment: Arisaka R., Satoh K. (2018) Abstract Argumentation / Persuasion / Dynamics. In: Miller T., Oren N., Sakurai Y., Noda I., Savarimuthu B., Cao Son T. (eds) PRIMA 2018: Principles and Practice of Multi-Agent Systems. PRIMA 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 11224. Springer, Cha

Abstract Games of Argumentation Strategy and Game-Theoretical Argument Strength

We define a generic notion of abstract games of argumentation strategy for (attack-only and bipolar) argumentation frameworks, which are zero-sum games whereby two players put forward sets of arguments and get a reward for their combined choices. The value of these games, in the classical game-theoretic sense, can be used to define measures of (quantitative) game-theoretic strength of arguments, which are different depending on whether either or both players have an “agenda” (i.e. an argument they want to be accepted). We show that this general scheme captures as a special instance a previous proposal in the literature (single agenda, attack-only frameworks), and seamlessly supports the definition of a spectrum of novel measures of game-theoretic strength where both players have an agenda and/or bipolar frameworks are considered. We then discuss the applicability of these instances of game-theoretic strength in different contexts and analyse their basic properties

Inference from controversial arguments

International audienceWe present new careful semantics within Dung's theory of argumentation. Under such careful semantics, two arguments cannot belong to the same extension whenever one of them indirectly attacks a third argument while the other one indirectly defends the third.We argue that our semantics lead to a better handling of controversial arguments than Dung's ones in some settings. We compare the careful inference relations induced by our semantics w.r.t. cautiousness; we also compare them with the inference relations induced by Dung's semantic

Balancing between cognitive and semantic acceptability of arguments

This paper addresses the problem concerning approximating human cognitions and semantic extensions regarding acceptability status of arguments. We introduce three types of logical equilibriums in terms of satisfiability, entailment and semantic equivalence in order to analyse balance of human cognitions and semantic extensions. The generality of our proposal is shown by the existence conditions of equilibrium solutions. The applicability of our proposal is demonstrated by the fact that it detects a flaw of argumentation actually taking place in an online forum and suggests its possible resolution

Interpretability of Gradual Semantics in Abstract Argumentation

International audiencergumentation, in the field of Artificial Intelligence, is a for-malism allowing to reason with contradictory information as well as tomodel an exchange of arguments between one or several agents. For thispurpose, many semantics have been defined with, amongst them, grad-ual semantics aiming to assign an acceptability degree to each argument.Although the number of these semantics continues to increase, there iscurrently no method allowing to explain the results returned by thesesemantics. In this paper, we study the interpretability of these seman-tics by measuring, for each argument, the impact of the other argumentson its acceptability degree. We define a new property and show that thescore of an argument returned by a gradual semantics which satisfies thisproperty can also be computed by aggregating the impact of the otherarguments on it. This result allows to provide, for each argument in anargumentation framework, a ranking between arguments from the most to the least impacting ones w.r.t a given gradual semantic

Computing Argument Preferences and Explanations in Abstract Argumentation

Financial support from The UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) for the grant (EP/P011829/1), Supporting Security Policy with Effective Digital Intervention (SSPEDI) is gratefully acknowledged.Postprin

Enhancing Goal-based Requirements Consistency: an Argumentation-based Approach

International audienceRequirements engineering research has for long recognized the leading role of goals as requirement artifacts during the requirements engineering specification processes. Given the large number of artifacts created during the requirements specification and the continuous evolution of these artifacts, reasoning about them remains a challenging task. Moreover, the rising complexity of the target domain under consideration during the requirements engineering process as well as the growth of geographically distributed projects explain why the number of collected requirements as well as their complexity also increase. In this context, providing support to stakeholders in achieving a common understanding of a set of goal-based requirements, in consolidating them and keeping them consistent over time is another challenging task. In this paper, we propose an approach to detect consistent sets of goal-based requirements and maintain their consistency over time. Our approach relies on argumentation theory which allows to detect the conflicts among elements called arguments. In particular, we rely on meta-argumentation, which instantiates abstract argumentation frameworks, where requirements are represented as arguments and the standard Dung-like argumentation framework is extended with additional relations between goal-based requirements

Towards Computational Persuasion via Natural Language Argumentation Dialogues

Computational persuasion aims to capture the human ability to persuade through argumentation for applications such as behaviour change in healthcare (e.g. persuading people to take more exercise or eat more healthily). In this paper, we review research in computational persuasion that incorporates domain modelling (capturing arguments and counterarguments that can appear in a persuasion dialogues), user modelling (capturing the beliefs and concerns of the persuadee), and dialogue strategies (choosing the best moves for the persuader to maximize the chances that the persuadee is persuaded). We discuss evaluation of prototype systems that get the user’s counterarguments by allowing them to select them from a menu. Then we consider how this work might be enhanced by incorporating a natural language interface in the form of an argumentative chatbot

Mutual Inhibition between Kaposi's Sarcoma-Associated Herpesvirus and Epstein-Barr Virus Lytic Replication Initiators in Dually-Infected Primary Effusion Lymphoma

Background: Both Kaposi’s sarcoma-associated herpesvirus (KSHV) and Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) are members of the human gamma herpesvirus family: each is associated with various human cancers. The majority of AIDS-associated primary effusion lymphoma (PEL) are co-infected with both KSHV and EBV. Dually-infected PELs selectively switch from latency to lytic replication of either KSHV or EBV in response to chemical stimuli. KSHV replication and transcription activator (K-RTA) is necessary and sufficient for the switch from KSHV latency to lytic replication, while EBV BZLF1 gene product (EBV-Z) is a critical initiator for induction of EBV lytic replication. Methodology/Principal Findings: We show K-RTA and EBV-Z are co-localized and physically interact with each other in dually-infected PELs. K-RTA inhibits the EBV lytic replication by nullifying EBV-Z-mediated EBV lytic gene activation. EBV-Z inhibits KSHV lytic gene expression by blocking K-RTA-mediated transactivations. The physical interaction between K-RTA and EBV-Z are required for the mutual inhibition of the two molecules. The leucine heptapeptide repeat (LR) region in K-RTA and leucine zipper region in EBV-Z are involved in the physical interactions of the two molecules. Finally, initiation of KSHV lytic gene expression is correlated with the reduction of EBV lytic gene expression in the same PEL cells. Conclusions/Significance: In this report, how the two viruses interact with each other in dually infected PELs is addressed. Our data may provide a possible mechanism for maintaining viral latency and for selective lytic replication in dually infected PELs, i.e., through mutual inhibition of two critical lytic replication initiators. Our data about putative interactions between EBV and KSHV would be applicable to the majority of AIDS-associated PELs and may be relevant to the pathogenesis of PELs