1,721,104 research outputs found
Revisiting Abstract Argumentation Frameworks
No full textThis paper argues that many extensions of Dung’s framework incorpo-rating relations additional to binary attacks, are best viewed as abstractions of human rather than computational models of reasoning and debate. The paper then discusses how these additional relations may be reified into object level knowledge, thus enabling reconstruction of the extended framework as a Dung framework, and providing rational guidance for further reasoning and debate.
Reasoning with metalevel argumentation frameworks in aspartix
Full text linkIn this demo paper, we propose an encoding for Metalevel Argumentation Frameworks (MAFs) to be used in Aspartix, an Answer Set Programming (ASP) approach to find the justified arguments of an AF. MAFs provide a uniform encoding of object level Dung Frameworks and extensions thereof that include values, preferences and attacks on attacks (EAFs). The justification status of arguments in the object level AF can then be evaluated and explained through evaluation of the arguments in the MAF. The demo includes multiple examples from the literature to show the applicability of our proposed encoding for translating various object level AFs to the uniform language of MAFs
Instantiating metalevel argumentation frameworks
Full text link We directly instantiate metalevel argumentation frameworks (MAFs) to enable argumentation-based reasoning about information relevant to various applications. The advantage of this is that information that typically cannot be incorporated via the instantiation of object-level argumentation frameworks can now be incorporated, in particular information referencing (1) preferences over arguments, (2) the rationale for attacks, and (3) the dialectical effect of critical questions that shifts the burden of proof when posed. We achieve this by using a variant of ASPIC + and a higher-order typed language that can reference object-level formulae and arguments. We illustrate these representational advantages with a running example from clinical decision support. </p
A dialogue game for multi-party goal-setting in health coaching
Full text linkGoal-setting is a frequently adopted strategy in behaviour change coaching. When setting a goal, it is important that it is understood and agreed upon by all parties, and not simply accepted as-is. We present here a dialogue game for multi-party goal-setting, in which multiple health coaches can contribute in order to find a goal that is acceptable to both the patient, and the coaches themselves. Our proposed game incorporates three important aspects of goal-setting and health coaching, (1) coaches can query each other's proposed goals, (2) the patient takes ownership of the goal, and (3) the patient themselves can propose goals.</p
A Demonstration of Multi-Party Dialogue Using Virtual Coaches: The First Council of Coaches Demonstrator
Full text linkWe demonstrate here the first Technical Demonstrator for Council of Coaches a project that is aiming to deploy a platform for virtual health coaching, and will incorporate computational models of argument and dialogu
Biparty decision theory for dialogical argumentation
Full text linkProposals for strategies for dialogical argumentation often focus on situations where one of the agents wins the dialogue and the other agent loses. Yet in real-world argumentation, it is common for agents to not involve such zero-sum situations. Rather, the agents may enter into a dialogue with divergent but not necessarily opposing views on what is important in the outcomes from the argumentation. In order to model this kind of situation, we investigate a decision-theoretic approach that allows different participants to have different utility evaluations of a dialogue, and for the proponent to model the opponent's utility evaluation in order to optimize the choice of move in the dialogue
Epistemic attack semantics
Full text linkWe present a probabilistic interpretation of the plausibility of attacks in abstract argumentation frameworks by extending the epistemic approach to probabilistic argumentation with probabilities on attacks. By doing so we also generalise the previously proposed attack semantics by Villata et al. to the probabilistic setting and provide a fine-grained assessment of the plausibility of attacks. We also consider the setting where partial probabilistic information on arguments and/or attacks is given and missing probabilities have to be derived
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Full text linkThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
A discussion game for grounded semantics
No full textWe introduce an argument-based discussion game where the ability to win the game for a particular argument coincides with the argument being in the grounded extension. Our game differs from previous work in that (i) the number of moves is linear (instead of exponential) w.r.t. the strongly admissible set that the game is constructing, (ii) winning the game does not rely on cooperation from the other player (that is, the game is winning strategy based), (iii) a single game won by the proponent is sufficient to show grounded membership, and (iv) the game has a number of properties that make it more in line with natural discussion
- …
