Approximating agreements in formal argumentation dialogues 1

Abstract

In many real applications, to reach an agreement between the participants of a dialogue, which can be for instance a negotiation, is not easy. Indeed, there are application domains such as the medical domain where to reach a consensus among medical professionals is not feasible and might be even regarded as counterproductive. In this paper, we introduce an approach for expressing qualitative preferences between the goals of a dialogue considering ordered disjunction rules. By applying argumentation semantics and degrees of satisfaction of goals, we introduce the so-called dialogue agreement degree. Moreover, by considering sets of dialogue agreement degrees, we define a lattice of agreement degrees. We argue that a lattice of agreement degrees suggests different approximations between the current state of a dialogue and its aimed goals; hence, a lattice of agreement degrees can help to define different heuristics in the settings of strategic argumentation.

Keywords

Formal dialogues non-monotonic reasoning logic programming goal reasoning strategic argumentation

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Atkinson,

Baroni,

Giacomin,

Hunter,

Prakken,

Reed,

G.R.

Simari,

Thimm and

Villata, Towards artificial argumentation, AI Magazine 38(3) (2017), 25–36. doi:10.1609/aimag.v38i3.2704.

Baral, Knowledge Representation, Reasoning and Declarative Problem Solving, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003.

Baroni,

Caminada and

Giacomin, An introduction to argumentation semantics, Knowledge Eng. Review 26(4) (2011), 365–410. doi:10.1017/S0269888911000166.

Baumann and

Woltran, The role of self-attacking arguments in characterizations of equivalence notions, Journal of Logic and Computation (2014).

Black and

Hunter, An inquiry dialogue system, Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 19(2) (2009), 173–209. doi:10.1007/s10458-008-9074-5.

Bondarenko,

P.M.

Dung,

R.A.

Kowalski and

Toni, An abstract, argumentation-theoretic approach to default reasoning, Artificial Intelligence 93 (1997), 63–101.

Brass,

Zukowski and

Freitag, Transformation-based bottom-up computation of the well-founded model, in: Non-Monotonic Extensions of Logic Programming, NMELP ’96,

T.C.P.

Jürgen Dix and

Moniz Pereira, eds, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 1216, 2007, pp. 171–201. doi:10.1007/BFb0023807.

Brewka,

Niemelä and

Syrjänen, Logic programs with ordered disjunction, Computational Intelligence 20(2) (2004), 335–357.

Dix,

Osorio and

Zepeda, A general theory of confluent rewriting systems for logic programming and its applications, Ann. Pure Appl. Logic 108(1–3) (2001), 153–188.

10.

P.M.

Dung, On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games, Artificial Intelligence 77(2) (1995), 321–358.

11.

P.E.

Dunne, Computational properties of argument systems satisfying graph-theoretic constraints, Artificial Intelligence 171(10–15) (2007), 701–729.

12.

Fan and

Toni, A general framework for sound assumption-based argumentation dialogues, Artif. Intell. 216 (2014), 20–54. doi:10.1016/j.artint.2014.06.001.

13.

A.J.

García and

G.R.

Simari, Defeasible logic programming: An argumentative approach, Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 4(1–2) (2004), 95–138. doi:10.1017/S1471068403001674.

14.

A.V.

Gelder,

K.A.

Ross and

J.S.

Schlipf, The well-founded semantics for general logic programs, Journal of the ACM 38(3) (1991), 620–650.

15.

Gelfond and

Lifschitz, The stable model semantics for logic programming, in: 5th Conference on Logic Programming,

Kowalski and

Bowen, eds, MIT Press, 1988, pp. 1070–1080.

16.

Governatori,

Olivieri,

Scannapieco,

Rotolo and

Cristani, Strategic argumentation is np-complete, in: ECAI 2014–21st European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, Vol. 263, IOS Press, 2014, pp. 399–404.

17.

Guerrero,

J.C.

Nieves and

Lindgren, Semantic-based construction of arguments: An answer set programming approach, International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 64 (2015), 54–74. doi:10.1016/j.ijar.2015.06.009.

18.

Guerrero,

J.C.

Nieves and

Lindgren, An activity-centric argumentation framework for assistive technology aimed at improving health, Argument and Computation 7(1) (2016), 5–33.

19.

Kljakovic, Clinical disagreement: A silent topic in general practice, New Zealand Family Physician 30(5) (2003), 358–360.

20.

Kraus,

K.P.

Sycara and

Evenchik, Reaching agreements through argumentation: A logical model and implementation, Artif. Intell. 104(1–2) (1998), 1–69. doi:10.1016/S0004-3702(98)00078-2.

21.

Modgil and

Prakken, The ASPIC⁺ framework for structured argumentation: A tutorial, Argument & Computation 5(1) (2014), 31–62. doi:10.1080/19462166.2013.869766.

22.

J.C.

Nieves, Modeling arguments and uncertain information — A non-monotonic reasoning approach, PhD thesis, Software Department (LSI) Technical University of Catalonia, 2008.

23.

J.C.

Nieves, Expansion and equivalence relations on argumentation frameworks based on logic programs, in: Multi-Agent Systems and Agreement Technologies – 14th European Conference, EUMAS 2016, and 4th International Conference, aT 2016, Valencia, Spain, December 15–16, 2016, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 10207, Springer, 2017, pp. 375–389.

24.

J.C.

Nieves, Approximating agreements in argumentation dialogues, in: The 15th European Conference in Multi-Agent Systems (EUMAS 2017) and 5th International Conference in Agreement Technologies (aT 2017),

Belardinelli and

Argente, eds, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 10767, 2018, pp. 501–515.

25.

J.C.

Nieves and

Confalonieri, A possibilistic argumentation decision making framework with default reasoning, Fundam. Inform. 113(1) (2011), 41–61.

26.

J.C.

Nieves and

Lindgren, Deliberative argumentation for service provision in smart environments, in: 12th European Conference on Multi-Agent Systems (EUMAS 2014), LNCS, Springer, 2015, pp. 388–397. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-17130-2_27.

27.

J.C.

Nieves,

Osorio and

Cortés, Supporting decision making in organ transplating using argumentation theory, in: LANMR 2006: 2nd Latin American Non-Monotonic Reasoning Workshop, 2006, pp. 9–14.

28.

Ossowski, Agreement Technologies, Springer, 2013.

29.

Parsons,

Wooldridge and

Amgoud, Properties and complexity of some formal inter-agent dialogues, Journal of Logic and Computation 13(3) (2003), 347–376. doi:10.1093/logcom/13.3.347.

30.

Prakken, Coherence and flexibility in dialogue games for argumentation, Journal of Logic and Computation 15(6) (2005), 1009–1040. doi:10.1093/logcom/exi046.

31.

Prakken, Formal systems for persuasion dialogue, Knowledge Eng. Review 21(2) (2006), 163–188. doi:10.1017/S0269888906000865.

32.

Prakken and

Sartor, Argument-based extended logic programming with defeasible priorities, Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 7(1) (1997).

33.

Rahwan and

G.R.

Simari (eds), Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, Springer, 2009.

34.

Sierra,

Simoff and

López de Màntaras, The argumentative mediator, in: Multi-Agent Systems and Agreement Technologies – 14th European Conference, EUMAS 2016, and 4th International Conference, aT 2016, Valencia, Spain, December 15–16, 2016, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 10207, Springer, 2017, pp. 439–454.

35.

Tolchinsky,

Cortés,

J.C.

Nieves,

López-Navidad and

Caballero, Using arguing agents to increase the human organ pool for transplantation, in: Proc. of the Third Workshop on Agents Applied in Health Care (IJCAI 2005), 2005.