Advertisement

Extending Social Abstract Argumentation with Votes on Attacks

  • Sinan Eğilmez
  • João Martins
  • João Leite
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8306)

Abstract

Social abstract argumentation laid theoretical foundations for future online debating systems with formal backbones and semantics. The advantage of these envisioned new systems is their capability of formally justifying the social outcomes of their debates. Many recent extensions proposed for argumentation in general have addressed the issue that not all attacks between arguments are equal, especially in the eyes of the crowd. This work generalises social abstract argumentation to incorporate voting on attacks, inducing a social notion of attack strengths.

Keywords

Social Support Argumentation Theory Argumentation Framework Semantic Framework Attack Relation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Amgoud, L., et al.: On bipolarity in argumentation frameworks. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 23(10), 1062–1093 (2008)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baroni, P., Giacomin, M.: On principle-based evaluation of extension-based argumentation semantics. Artif. Intell. 171(10-15), 675–700 (2007)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Boella, G., et al.: Support in abstract argumentation. In: Procs. of COMMA 2010. FAIA, vol. 216. IOS Press (2010)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cabrio, E., Villata, S.: Natural language arguments: A combined approach. In: Procs. of ECAI 2012. FAIA, vol. 242. IOS Press (2012)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.C.: Graduality in argumentation. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 23, 245–297 (2005)zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chesñevar, C., et al.: Towards an argument interchange format. Knowledge Eng. Review 21(4), 293–316 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif. Intell. 77(2), 321–358 (1995)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dunne, P., et al.: Weighted argument systems: Basic definitions, algorithms, and complexity results. Artif. Intell. 175(2), 457–486 (2011)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Evripidou, V., Toni, F.: Argumentation and voting for an intelligent user empowering business directory on the web. In: Krötzsch, M., Straccia, U. (eds.) RR 2012. LNCS, vol. 7497, pp. 209–212. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gabbay, D.M.: Equational approach to argumentation networks. Argument & Computation 3(2-3), 87–142 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gabbay, D., Rodrigues, O.: A numerical approach to the merging of argumentation networks. In: Fisher, M., van der Torre, L., Dastani, M., Governatori, G. (eds.) CLIMA XIII 2012. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 7486, pp. 195–212. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gabbriellini, S., Torroni, P.: Large scale agreements via microdebates. In: Procs. of AT 2012. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 918 (2012)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    García, A., Dix, J., Simari, G.: Argument-based logic programming. In: Rahwan, I., Simari, G.R. (eds.) Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 153–171. Springer (2009)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Grosse, K., Chesñevar, C.I., Maguitman, A.G.: An argument-based approach to mining opinions from Twitter. In: Procs. of AT 2012. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 918 (2012)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kontarinis, D., et al.: Picking the right expert to make a debate uncontroversial. In: Procs. of COMMA 2012. FAIA, vol. 245. IOS Press (2012)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Leite, J., Martins, J.: Social abstract argumentation. In: Procs. of IJCAI 2011. IJCAI/AAAI (2011)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Modgil, S.: Reasoning about preferences in argumentation frameworks. Artif. Intell. 173(9-10), 901–934 (2009)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Modgil, S., et al.: The added value of argumentation. In: Ossowski, S. (ed.) Agreement Technologies. Law, Governance and Tech. Series, vol. 8, pp. 357–403. Springer (2013)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Modgil, S., Prakken, H.: Resolutions in structured argumentation. In: Procs. of COMMA 2012. FAIA, vol. 245, IOS Press (2012)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Oren, N., Atkinson, K., Li, H.: Group persuasion through uncertain audience modelling. In: Procs. of COMMA 2012. FAIA, vol. 245. IOS Press (2012)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Walton, D.: Argumentation theory: A very short introduction. In: Rahwan, I., Simari, G.R. (eds.) Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 1–22. Springer (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sinan Eğilmez
    • 1
  • João Martins
    • 1
    • 2
  • João Leite
    • 1
  1. 1.CENTRIA and Departamento de Informática, FCTUniversidade Nova de LisboaPortugal
  2. 2.Computer Science DepartmentCarnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations