Advertisement

On the Issue of Argumentation and Informedness

  • Martin CaminadaEmail author
  • Chiaki Sakama
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10091)

Abstract

In the current paper we examine how to assess knowledge and expertise in an argumentation based setting. In particular, we are looking for a formal criterion to determine whether one agent is more informed than another. Several such criteria are discussed, each of which has its own advantages and disadvantages.

Keywords

True Belief Justify Belief Winning Strategy Argumentation Theory Justification Status 
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.

References

  1. 1.
    Baroni, P., Caminada, M., Giacomin, M.: An introduction to argumentation semantics. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 26(4), 365–410 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baroni, P., Giacomin, M.: On principle-based evaluation of extension-based argumentation semantics. Artif. Intell. 171(10–15), 675–700 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Besnard, P., Hunter, A.: Constructing argument graphs with deductive arguments: A tutorial. Argument Comput. 5, 5–30 (2014). Special Issue: Tutorials on Structured ArgumentationCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Booth, R., Caminada, M., Podlaszewski, M., Rahwan, I.: Quantifying disagreement in argument-based reasoning. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (2012)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Caminada, M.: On the issue of reinstatement in argumentation. In: Fisher, M., Hoek, W., Konev, B., Lisitsa, A. (eds.) JELIA 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4160, pp. 111–123. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). doi: 10.1007/11853886_11 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Caminada, M.: A discussion game for grounded semantics. In: Black, E., Modgil, S., Oren, N. (eds.) TAFA 2015. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 9524, pp. 59–73. Springer, Cham (2015). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-28460-6_4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Caminada, M., Amgoud, L.: On the evaluation of argumentation formalisms. Artif. Intell. 171(5–6), 286–310 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Caminada, M., Dvořák, W., Vesic, S.: Preferred semantics as socratic discussion. J. Logic Comput. 26(4), 1257–1292 (2016). doi: 10.1093/logcom/exu005 MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Caminada, M., Gabbay, D.M.: A logical account of formal argumentation. Stud. Logica 93(2–3), 109–145 (2009). Special issue: new ideas in argumentation theoryMathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Caminada, M., Pigozzi, G.: On judgment aggregation in abstract argumentation. J. Auton. Agent. Multi-Agent Syst. 22, 64–102 (2011). doi: 10.1007/s10458-009-9116-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cayrol, C., Dupin de Saint-Cyr, F., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.: Change in abstract argumentation frameworks: Adding an argument. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 38, 49–84 (2010)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sakama, C., Caminada, M., Herzig, A.: A logical account of lying. In: Janhunen, T., Niemelä, I. (eds.) JELIA 2010. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 6341, pp. 286–299. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-15675-5_25 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Caminada, M., Sakama, C., Herzig, A.: A formal account of dishonesty. Logic J. IGPL 23, 259–294 (2015)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and \(n\)-person games. Artif. Intell. 77, 321–357 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dvořák, W.: On the complexity of computing the justification status of an argument. In: Modgil, S., Oren, N., Toni, F. (eds.) TAFA 2011. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 7132, pp. 32–49. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-29184-5_3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fitting, M.: Bilattices and the semantics of logic programming. J. Logic Program. 11, 91–116 (1991)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Frankfurt, H.G.: On Bullshit. Princeton University Press, Princeton (2005)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Governatori, G., Maher, M.J., Antoniou, G., Billington, D.: Argumentation semantics for defeasible logic. J. Logic Comput. 14(5), 675–702 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Grossi, D., van der Hoek, W.: Justified beliefs by justified arguments. In: Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pp. 131–140 (2014)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Modgil, S., Caminada, M.: Proof theories and algorithms for abstract argumentation frameworks. In: Rahwan, I., Simari, G.R. (eds.) Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 105–129. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Modgil, S., Prakken, H.: The ASPIC+ framework for structured argumentation: A tutorial. Argument Comput. 5, 31–62 (2014). Special Issue: Tutorials on Structured ArgumentationCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Prakken, H.: An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. Argument Comput. 1(2), 93–124 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rienstra, T.: Argumentation in flux: modelling change in the theory of argumentation. Ph.D. thesis, Université du Luxembourg (1999)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sakama, C.: Ordering default theories. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 338, 127–152 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Toni, F.: A tutorial on assumption-based argumentation. Argument Comput. 5, 89–117 (2014). Special Issue: Tutorials on Structured ArgumentationCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wu, Y., Caminada, M.: A labelling-based justification status of arguments. Stud. Logic 3(4), 12–29 (2010)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wu, Y., Caminada, M., Gabbay, D.M.: Complete extensions in argumentation coincide with 3-valued stable models in logic programming. Stud. Logica 93(1–2), 383–403 (2009). Special issue: new ideas in argumentation theoryMathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Cardiff UniversityCardiffUK
  2. 2.Wakayama UniversityWakayamaJapan

Personalised recommendations