Towards a transparent deliberation protocol inspired from supply chain collaborative planning

International audienceIn this paper we propose a new deliberation process based on argumentation and bipolar decision making in a context of agreed common knowledge and priorities together with private preferences. This work is inspired from the supply chain management domain and more precisely by the "Collaborative Planning, Forecasting and Replenishment" model which aims at selecting a procurement plan in collaborative supply chains

An axiomatic approach for persuasion dialogs

International audienceSeveral systems were developed for supporting public persuasion dialogs where two agents with conflicting opinions try to convince an audience. For computing the outcomes of dialogs, these systems use (abstract or structured) argumentation systems that were initially developed for nonmonotonic reasoning. Despite the increasing number of such systems, there are almost no work on high level properties they should satisfy. This paper is a first attempt for defining postulates that guide the well-definition of dialog systems and that allow their comparison. We propose six basic postulates (including e.g. the finiteness of generated dialogs). We then show that this set of postulates is incompatible with those proposed for argumentation systems devoted for nonmonotonic reasoning. This incompatibility confirms the differences between persuading and reasoning. It also suggests that reasoning systems are not suitable for computing the outcomes of dialogs

Belief revision and incongruity: is it a joke?

Incongruity often makes people laugh. You have to be smart to say stupid things. It requires to be even smarter for understanding them. This paper is a shameless attempt to formalize this intelligent behavior in the case of an agent listening to a joke. All this is a matter of revision of beliefs, surprise and violation of norms.Comment: A special paper on/in humor/honor for/of Philippe Besnar

Four Ways to Evaluate Arguments According to Agent Engagement

International audienceIn this paper we are interested in the computational and formal analysis of the persuasive impact that an argument can have on a human. We present a preliminary account of the listener mental process (representation and reasoning mechanisms of the dual process cognitive model) as well as her engagement based on the ELM model. This engagement determines the reasoning process that the agent will adopt in order to evaluate and incorporate the uttered argument

Substantive irrationality in cognitive systems

International audienceIn this paper we approach both procedural and substantive irrationality of artificial agent cognitive systems and consider that when it is not possible for an agent to make a logical inference (too expensive cognitive effort or not enough knowledge) she might replace certain parts of the logical reasoning with mere associations

Using a SMT solver for risk analysis: detecting logical mistakes in texts

International audienceThe purpose of this paper is to describe some results of the LELIE project, that are a contribution of Artificial Intelligence to a special domain: the analysis of the risks due to poorly written technical documents. This is a multidisciplinary contribution since it combines natural language processing with logical satisfiability checking. This paper explains how satisfiability checking can be used for detecting inconsistencies, redundancy and incompleteness in procedural texts and describes the part of the implemented tool that produces the logical translation of technical texts and realizes the checkings

Changements guidés par les buts en argumentation : Cadre théorique et outil

National audienceCet article définit un cadre théorique pour étudier le changement en argumentation. Ce cadre permet de prendre en compte le raisonnement d’un agent qui désire modifier un système d’argumentation cible afin d’atteindre certains buts. Les modifications sont des ajouts/retraits d’arguments ou d’attaques. L’agent est contraint par ses propres connaissances représentées par un deuxième système d’argumentation. Nous présentons un logiciel capable de calculer les opérations exécutables par un agent pour atteindre ses buts sur une cible donnée

Goal-driven Changes in Argumentation: A theoretical framework and a tool

International audienceThis paper defines a new framework for dynamics in argumentation. In this framework, an agent can change an argumentation system (the target system) in order to achieve some desired goal. Changes consist in addition/removal of arguments or attacks between arguments and are constrained by the agent’s knowledge encoded by another argumentation system. We present a software that computes the possible change operations for a given agent on a given target argumentation system in order to achieve some given goal

Argumentation update in YALLA (Yet Another Logic Language for Argumentation)

International audienceThis article proposes a complete framework for handling the dynamics of an abstract argumentation system. This frame can encompass several belief bases under the form of several argumentation systems, more precisely it is possible to express and study how an agent who has her own argumentation system can interact on a target argumentation system (that may represent a state of knowledge at a given stage of a debate). The two argumentation systems are defined inside a reference argumentation system called the universe which constitutes a kind of “common language”. This paper establishes three main results. First, we show that change in argumentation in such a framework can be seen as a particular case of belief update. Second, we have introduced a new logical language called YALLA in which the structure of an argumentation system can be encoded, enabling to express all the basic notions of argumentation theory (defense, conflict-freeness, extensions) by formulae of YALLA. Third, due to previous works about dynamics in argumentation we have been in position to provide a set of new properties that are specific for argumentation update

Towards an Understanding of Human Persuasion and Biases in Argumentation (CAF 2016)

International audienceWe present in this paper some recent work aiming at allowing the formal analysis of the persuasive impact that an argument may produce on a human agent based. We present a computational model based on the Dual Process Theory and applied to argument evaluation. These works form the preliminary step that will allow a better understanding of two crucial aspects of collective decision-making: persuasive processes and argumentation strategies