Results 1 - 10
of
25
Collective Argument Evaluation as Judgement Aggregation
- In 9th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents & Multi Agent Systems, AAMAS’2010
, 2010
"... A conflicting knowledge base can be seen abstractly as a set of arguments and a binary relation characterising conflict among them. There may be multiple plausible ways to evaluate conflicting arguments. In this paper, we ask: given a set of agents, each with a legitimate subjective evaluation of a ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 13 (7 self)
- Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
A conflicting knowledge base can be seen abstractly as a set of arguments and a binary relation characterising conflict among them. There may be multiple plausible ways to evaluate conflicting arguments. In this paper, we ask: given a set of agents, each with a legitimate subjective evaluation of a set of arguments, how can they reach a collective evaluation of those arguments? After formally defining this problem, we extensively analyse an argument-wise plurality voting rule, showing that it suffers a fundamental limitation. Then we demonstrate, through a general impossibility result, that this limitation is more fundamentally rooted. Finally, we show how this impossibility result can be circumvented by additional domain restrictions.
On the outcomes of multiparty persuasion
- In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems
, 2011
"... In recent years, several bilateral protocols regulating the exchange of arguments between agents have been proposed. When dealing with persuasion, the objective is to arbitrate among conflicting viewpoints. Often, these debates are not entirely predetermined from the initial situation, which means t ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 9 (3 self)
- Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
In recent years, several bilateral protocols regulating the exchange of arguments between agents have been proposed. When dealing with persuasion, the objective is to arbitrate among conflicting viewpoints. Often, these debates are not entirely predetermined from the initial situation, which means that agents have a chance to influence the outcome in a way that fits their individual preferences. This paper introduces a simple and intuitive protocol for multiparty argumentation, in which several (more than two) agents are equipped with argumentation systems. We further assume that they focus on a (unique) argument (or issue) —thus making the debate two-sided — but do not coordinate. We study what outcomes can (or will) be reached if agents follow this protocol. We investigate in particular under which conditions the debate is pre-determined or not, and whether the outcome coincides with the result obtained by merging the argumentation systems.
Complexity of Judgment Aggregation
"... We analyse the computational complexity of three problems in judgment aggregation: (1) computing a collective judgment from a profile of individual judgments (the winner determination problem); (2) deciding whether a given agent can influence the outcome of a judgment aggregation procedure in her fa ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 8 (4 self)
- Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
We analyse the computational complexity of three problems in judgment aggregation: (1) computing a collective judgment from a profile of individual judgments (the winner determination problem); (2) deciding whether a given agent can influence the outcome of a judgment aggregation procedure in her favour by reporting insincere judgments (the strategic manipulation problem); and (3) deciding whether a given judgment aggregation scenario is guaranteed to result in a logically consistent outcome, independently from what the judgments supplied by the individuals are (the problem of the safety of the agenda). We provide results both for specific aggregation procedures (the quota rules, the premisebased procedure, and a distance-based procedure) and for classes of aggregation procedures characterised in terms of fundamental axioms. 1.
Quantifying Disagreement in Argument-based Reasoning
, 2012
"... An argumentation framework can be seen as expressing, in an abstract way, the conflicting information of an underlying logical knowledge base. This conflicting information often allows for the presence of more than one possible reasonable position (extension/labelling) which one can take. A relevant ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 5 (3 self)
- Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
An argumentation framework can be seen as expressing, in an abstract way, the conflicting information of an underlying logical knowledge base. This conflicting information often allows for the presence of more than one possible reasonable position (extension/labelling) which one can take. A relevant question, therefore, is how much these positions differ from each other. In the current paper, we will examine the issue of how to define meaningful measures of distance between the (complete) labellings of a given argumentation framework. We provide concrete distance measures based on argument-wise label difference, as well as based on the notion of critical sets, and examine their properties.
Cooperative Dialogues with Conditional Arguments
"... We introduce an approach to cooperative dialogues as a framework for group deliberation. One of its distinguishing features is that it deals with conditional and constraintbased arguments, which are built by employing abductive and hypothetical reasoning. These kinds of arguments allow agents to use ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 4 (2 self)
- Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
We introduce an approach to cooperative dialogues as a framework for group deliberation. One of its distinguishing features is that it deals with conditional and constraintbased arguments, which are built by employing abductive and hypothetical reasoning. These kinds of arguments allow agents to use a variety of dialogue moves proper to a cooperative debate, such as argument rewrites and conditional attacks. In our approach, a group of agents develops a dialogue as they explore different lines of thought to build a group position in a yes or no decision. In essence, given a matter for discussion, the parties involved will consider arguments that either supports or rejects it and discuss such arguments to decide whether or not to accept them. To achieve that, agents will work as a team and combine their knowledge to produce more complex arguments and study possible flaws these might have. Categories and Subject Descriptors F.4.1 [Mathematical Logic]: Logic and constraint programming;
On the equivalence between logic programming semantics and argumentation semantics
, 2013
"... Abstract In the current paper, we re-examine the connection between formal argumentation and logic programming from the perspective of semantics. We observe that one particular translation from logic programs to instantiated argumentation (the one described by Wu, Caminada and Gabbay) is able to se ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 4 (1 self)
- Add to MetaCart
Abstract In the current paper, we re-examine the connection between formal argumentation and logic programming from the perspective of semantics. We observe that one particular translation from logic programs to instantiated argumentation (the one described by Wu, Caminada and Gabbay) is able to serve as a basis for describing various equivalences between logic programming semantics and argumentation semantics. In particular, we are able to show equivalence between regular semantics for logic programming and preferred semantics for formal argumentation. We also show that there exist logic programming semantics (L-stable semantics) that cannot be captured by any abstract argumentation semantics.
Manipulation in group argument evaluation
"... Given an argumentation framework and a group of agents, the individuals may have divergent opinions on the status of the arguments. If the group needs to reach a common position on the argumentation framework, the question is how the individual evaluations can be mapped into a collective one. This p ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 3 (3 self)
- Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Given an argumentation framework and a group of agents, the individuals may have divergent opinions on the status of the arguments. If the group needs to reach a common position on the argumentation framework, the question is how the individual evaluations can be mapped into a collective one. This problem has been recently investigated in [1]. In this paper, we study under which conditions these operators are Pareto optimal and whether they are manipulable.
A labelling approach for ideal and stage semantics.
- Argument and Comp.,
, 2011
"... In this document, we describe the concepts of ideal semantics and stage semantics for abstract argumentation in terms of argument labellings. The difference between the traditional extensions approach and the labelling approach is that where the former only identifies the sets of accepted arguments ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 3 (1 self)
- Add to MetaCart
In this document, we describe the concepts of ideal semantics and stage semantics for abstract argumentation in terms of argument labellings. The difference between the traditional extensions approach and the labelling approach is that where the former only identifies the sets of accepted arguments, the latter also identifies the rejected arguments as well as the arguments that are neither accepted nor rejected. So far, the labellings approach has been successfully applied to complete, grounded, preferred, stable and semi-stable semantics, as well as to the concept of admissibility. In the current paper, we continue this line of research by showing that also ideal semantics and stage semantics can be described in terms of argument labellings.
Uncertainty in Abstract Argument Games: A Case Study on the Game for the Grounded Extension
, 2012
"... The paper argues for the equipment of argument games with richer game-theoretic features. Concretely, it tackles the question of what happens to argument games when proponent and opponent are uncertain about the attack graph upon which they are playing. This simple sort of uncertainty, we argue, cat ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 2 (0 self)
- Add to MetaCart
The paper argues for the equipment of argument games with richer game-theoretic features. Concretely, it tackles the question of what happens to argument games when proponent and opponent are uncertain about the attack graph upon which they are playing. This simple sort of uncertainty, we argue, caters for the modeling of several strategic phenomena of real-life arguments. Using the argument game for the grounded semantics as a case study, the paper studies the impact of uncertainty over the ability of argument games to deliver adequacy with respect to their corresponding semantics.
Audience-Based Uncertainty in Abstract Argument Games
, 2013
"... All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately. ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 1 (0 self)
- Add to MetaCart
All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
