No abstract

Abstract. Lately, several works have analyzed potential uses of argumentation in multi-party debates. Usually, the focus of such works is the computation of a collectively "correct" outcome, a challenging task even when the debate's users truthfully express their beliefs. This work focuses on debates where some users may exhibit specific types of "malicious" behavior: they may lie (by making statements they do not believe to hold) and they may hide valuable information (by not making relevant statements they believe to hold). Our approach is the following: firstly, we define "user attributes" which capture different aspects of a user's behavior in a debate (how active, how opinionated and how classifiable a user has been); then, we build and test experimentally hypotheses that, from the values of these attributes, can predict whether a user has lied and/or hidden valuable information.

A novel complexation of Co-phthalocyanine, with ethylenediamine (en) is described. By this method a macromolecular product is formed. This product absorbs oxygen in aprotic solvents and the existence of a -Co -O -O -Co -bond is suggested.

Abstract. Debating agents have often different areas of expertise and conflicting opinions on the subjects under discussion. They are faced with the problem of deciding how to contribute to the current state of the debate in order to satisfy their personal goals. We focus on target sets, that specify minimal changes on the current state of the debate allowing agents to satisfy their goals, where changes are the addition and/or deletion of attacks among arguments. In this paper, we experimentally test a number of strategies based on target sets, and we evaluate them with respect to different criteria, as the length of the debate, the happiness of the agents, and the rationality of the result.