Skip to content
Free planNo credit card requiredStart writing
AI for Research home
AI for Research home
Dashboard
Sign inGet started

Search 250 million research papers

Read the abstract, see who wrote it and who cites it, and get the citation in APA, MLA, Chicago or Harvard.

About 4,369 papers for “Argumentation framework”

The Toulmin Argumentation Framework

Advances in educational marketing, administration, and leadership book series · 2023

The authors present Stephen Toulmin's incredibly powerful framework for analyzing the structure of arguments: the Toulmin argumentation framework, or TAF for short. Every argument terminates in a claim, the end conclusion of an argument. Every argument also makes use of evidence of some kind. In short, the evidence is the evidentiary support upon which an argument is built. The warrant, which is the because part of an argument, is the bridge between the evidence and the claim. The backing is the deeper set of background reasons why the warrant should be accepted. Finally, every argument has a rebuttal. The rebuttal is the full set of counter-arguments against every part of the main argument, for example, why the claim is dubious and makes no sense at all, why the evidence is flawed and therefore doesn't support the claim, why the warrant is deficient, and why the backing doesn't support the warrant.

Cited by 0Open access

The Zeno Argumentation Framework

Thomas Gordon German, Thomas F. Gordon, Nikos Karacapilidis · 1997

The Zeno Argumentation Framework is a formal model of argumentation based on the informal models of Toulmin and Rittel. Its main feature is a labelling function using arguments to compute heuristic information about the relative quality of the alternative positions proposed as solutions for some practical issue. The Zeno Argumentation Framework was designed to be used in mediation systems, an advanced kind of electronic discussion forum with special support for argumentation, negotiation and other structured forms of group decision-making. 1 Problem Statement The cities of Bonn and Sankt Augustin are planning a residential area and high-technology "park" in an area between the two cities. This area was zoned for agricultural purposes only, so a formal proposal was made to change the zoning ordinance. According to local law, changes of this kind are subject to a formal review procedure. This procedure requires that the plan be made available to the general public for their comments, c...

Cited by 0

A Dynamic Argumentation Framework

Nicolás D. Rotstein, Martín O. Moguillansky, Alejandro Javier García et al. · Frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications · 2010

This article introduces the notion of dynamics for abstract argumentation frameworks. We consider evidence as the basis from which arguments may be considered valid. The proposed Dynamic Argumentation Framework (DAF) is a refinement of Dung's abstract framework (AF), enriched with additional features. Since an instance of a DAF is equivalent to an AF, the former could be viewed as a template to build different AFs, applying the same knowledge to different situations. This equivalence is important, as we can take advantage of the vast amount of study on argumentation semantics for AFs to apply it to our approach. The DAF's aim is to provide a well-structured knowledge representation tool that allows for the definition of dynamics-aware argumentation-based systems.

Cited by 34

Summarization Method of Argumentation Based on Argumentation Framework

Kei Nishina, Katsumi Nitta · Transactions of the Japanese Society for Artificial Intelligence · 2023

Visualization of discussions using diagrams is effective in facilitating efficient debates. However, because actual debates involve many conflicts, the diagrams that represent them tend to be complex in structure. Therefore, we use AF and BAF, which have simple structure and semantics to extract arguments that may be included in conclusions of debates, to support real-time debate progression and to verify the logical structure of debates. For this purpose, we propose a “BAF diagram summarization method” that recognizes and reduces subgraphs that represent local arguments about related sub-issues from these diagrams. The final output of this method is a diagram in the form of “Reliability based Argumentation Framework (RAF)”, which consists less nodes and less links between them. RAF is an extensional model of AF in which each argument is assigned an “argument class” based on its feasibility, and semantics for RAF is defined by argument classes of arguments and attack relations between them. The RAF semantics has the role of preserving the semantic information in the BAF diagram summarization method. This is because by computing the semantics of the resulting RAF, it is possible to capture some of the important information in the semantics of the original BAF. Furthermore, we developed an on-line discussion support tool that implements this method, and visualize the results of user input.

Cited by 0Open access

Case-Based Argumentation Framework. Strategies

Heras Barberá, Stella María, Botti Navarro, Vicente Juan, Julian Inglada, Vicente Javier · RiuNet (Politechnical University of Valencia) · 2011

In agent societies, agents perform complex tasks that require different levels of intelligence and give rise to interactions among them. From these interactions, conflicts of opinion can arise, specially when MAS become adaptive and open with heterogeneous agents dynamically entering in or leaving the system. Therefore, software agents willing to participate in this type of systems will require to include extra capabilities to explicitly represent and generate agreements on top of the simpler ability to interact. In addition, agents can take advantage of previous argumentation experiences to follow dialogue strategies and easily persuade other agents to accept their opinions. Our insight is that CBR can be very useful to manage argumentation in open MAS and devise argumentation strategies based on previous argumentation experiences. To demonstrate the foundations of this suggestion, this report presents the work that we have done to develop case-based argumentation strategies in agent societies. Thus, we propose a case-based argumentation framework for agent societies and define heuristic dialogue strategies based on it. The framework has been implemented and evaluated in a real customer support application.

Cited by 0Open access

An Argumentation Framework for Concept Learning

Leïla Amgoud, Mathieu Serrurier · HAL (Le Centre pour la Communication Scientifique Directe) · 2013

Concept learning is an important problem in AI that consists of, given a set of training examples and counter-examples on a particular concept, identifying a model that is coherent with the training examples, i.e that classifies them correctly. The obtained model is intended to be reused for the purpose of classifying new examples. Version space is one of the formal frameworks developed for that purpose. It takes as input a consistent set of training examples on the concept to learn, a set of possible models, called hypothesis ordered by generality, and returns the hypothesis that are coherent with the training examples. The returned set of hypothesis is called version space and is described by its lower and upper bounds. This paper provides an argumentation-based framework that captures the results of the version space approach. The basic idea is to construct arguments in favor of/against each hypothesis and training example, to evaluate those arguments and to determine among the conflicting arguments the acceptable ones. We will show that the acceptable arguments characterize the version space as well as its lower and upper bounds. Moreover, we will show that an argumentationbased approach for learning offers an additional advantage by allowing the handling of common problems in classical concept learning. Indeed, it is possible to reason directly with sets of hypothesis rather than one, and to deal with inconsistent sets of training examples. Lastly, the framework translates the problem of classifying examples into a decision one.

Cited by 0Open access

Probability and standpoint based argumentation framework

Fangfang Xie · 2021

The abstract argumentation framework has become a core research in knowledge representation and artificial intelligence. Many extend argumentation frameworks proposed, while they have not referred to standpoint. In this paper, we propose the probability and standpoint based argumentation framework. The concept of standpoint is defined to represent the viewpoint of argument. We provide the semantics and properties of the probability and standpoint based argumentation.

Cited by 0

Argumentation framework with weighted argument structure

Jilong Wang, Guiming Luo, Bingsheng Wang · 2011

Theory of argumentation constitutes a general framework for reasoning and has been widely applied in computational intelligence problems such as nonmonotonic reasoning, decision making and logic programming. To capture the internal structure of arguments, each argument is assigned with a weight, which represents the argument's credibility, to construct a numeric argumentation framework. Within this framework, attacks and preferences are endowed with strengths which are determined by the weights of arguments related. Inspired by the majority rule, properties of attacks or preferences sharing the same target are also explored. The notion of acceptability and extended theory retain the basic machinery of Dung's theory. Finally, an n-person game is formalized in numeric argumentation framework to illustrate the rationality of the new theory.

Cited by 4

Case-Based Argumentation Framework. Reasoning Process

Heras Barberá, Stella María, Botti Navarro, Vicente Juan, Julian Inglada, Vicente Javier · RiuNet (Politechnical University of Valencia) · 2011

The capability of reaching agreements is a necessary feature that large computer systems where agents interoperate must include. In these systems, agents represent self-motivated entities that have a social context, including dependency relations among them, and different preferences and beliefs. Without agreement there is no cooperation and thus, complex tasks which require the interaction of agents with different points of view cannot be performed. In this work, we follow a case-based argumentation approach for the design and implementation of Multi-Agent Systems where agents reach agreements by arguing and improve their argumentation skills from experience. A set of knowledge resources and a reasoning process that agents can use to manage their positions and arguments are presented.

Cited by 0Open access

A Labelling Framework for Probabilistic Argumentation

Régis Riveret, Pietro Baroni, Yang Gao et al. · arXiv (Cornell University) · 2017

The combination of argumentation and probability paves the way to new accounts of qualitative and quantitative uncertainty, thereby offering new theoretical and applicative opportunities. Due to a variety of interests, probabilistic argumentation is approached in the literature with different frameworks, pertaining to structured and abstract argumentation, and with respect to diverse types of uncertainty, in particular the uncertainty on the credibility of the premises, the uncertainty about which arguments to consider, and the uncertainty on the acceptance status of arguments or statements. Towards a general framework for probabilistic argumentation, we investigate a labelling-oriented framework encompassing a basic setting for rule-based argumentation and its (semi-) abstract account, along with diverse types of uncertainty. Our framework provides a systematic treatment of various kinds of uncertainty and of their relationships and allows us to back or question assertions from the literature.

Cited by 3Open access