Advertisement

Meta-Argumentation Frameworks for Multi-party Dialogues

Conference paper
  • 1k Downloads
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11224)

Abstract

The conclusions drawn from a dialogue depend both on the content of the arguments, and the level of trust placed in the arguments and the entity advancing them. In this paper, we describe a framework for dialogue where such trust forms the basis for expressing preferences between arguments, and in turn, for computing conclusions of the dialogue. Our framework contains object and meta-level arguments, and uses ASPIC+ to represent arguments, while argument schemes capture meta-level arguments about trust and preferences.

References

  1. 1.
    Amgoud, L., Ben-Naim, J.: Ranking-based semantics for argumentation frameworks. In: Liu, W., Subrahmanian, V.S., Wijsen, J. (eds.) SUM 2013. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 8078, pp. 134–147. Springer, Heidelberg (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40381-1_11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Amgoud, L., Vesic, S.: Rich preference-based argumentation frameworks. Int. J. Approx. Reason. 55(2), 585–606 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bench-Capon, T.J.: Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. J. Logic Comput. 13(3), 429–448 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    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), 321–357 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Modgil, S., Bench-Capon, T.: Integrating object and meta-level value based argumentation. Comput. Models Argument 172, 240–251 (2008)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Modgil, S., Prakken, H.: The ASPIC+ framework for structured argumentation: a tutorial. Argument Comput. 5(1), 31–62 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Müller, J., Hunter, A., Taylor, P.: Meta-level argumentation with argument schemes. In: Liu, W., Subrahmanian, V.S., Wijsen, J. (eds.) SUM 2013. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 8078, pp. 92–105. Springer, Heidelberg (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40381-1_8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Paglieri, F.: Trusting the messenger because of the message. Comput. Math. Organ. Theory 20(2), 176–194 (2014)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Parsons, S.: Argument schemes for reasoning about trust. Argument Comput. 5(2–3), 160–190 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Prakken, H.: An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. Argument Comput. 1(2), 93–124 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Villata, S., Boella, G., Gabbay, D.M., Van Der Torre, L.: A socio-cognitive model of trust using argumentation theory. Int. J. Approx. Reason. 54(4), 541–559 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Walton, D., Reed, C., Macagno, F.: Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Walton, D., Krabbe, E.C.: Commitment in dialogue: basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. SUNY press, Albany (1995)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wooldridge, M., McBurney, P., Parsons, S.: On the meta-logic of arguments. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 560–567 (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computing ScienceUniversity of AberdeenScotlandUK
  2. 2.School of Computer ScienceUniversity of St AndrewsScotlandUK

Personalised recommendations