Graduality in Argumentation

Cayrol, Claudette; Lagasquie-Schiex, Marie-Christine

doi:10.1613/jair.1411

Cited by 103 publications

(148 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

147

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…£ measures how close an item d is to satisfy the property of dominance. 6 Supporting e-marketplaces Electronic marketplaces allow internet users to meet business organisations, to discover, select and purchase their goods, products or services. We have implemented the methods for decision-making described in this paper (dominance=admissibility and degrees of admissibility) and have tested them on an emarket place application, for the selection of earth observation products, namely images generated by satellites.…”

Section: Degrees Of Admissibilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This problem has been proposed by GMV S.A. 6 , building upon their extensive eld experience. The full problem is described in [31].…”

Section: Degrees Of Admissibilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[11] also links a semantics for argumentation to a decision-theoretic criterion (Wald's minimax criterion) in a context of decision making under strict uncertainty. The idea of using degrees of admissibility nds its origins in the notion of graduality [6]. Graduality has been introduced to generalise the classical notion of acceptability in argumentation from [12].…”

Section: B3 = Ftemperature Distinguishable; Infrared Radiometer 3 Temmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Dominant Decisions by Argumentation Agents

Matt

Toni

Vaccari

2010

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. We introduce a special family of (assumption-based argumentation) frameworks for reasoning about the bene ts of decisions. These frameworks can be used for representing the knowledge of intelligent agents that can autonomously choose the \best" decisions, given subjective needs and preferences of decision-makers they \represent". We understand \best" decisions as dominant ones, giving more bene ts than any other decisions. Dominant decisions correspond, within the family of argumentation frameworks considered, to admissible arguments. We also propose the use of degrees of admissibility of arguments as a heuristic to assess subjectively the value of decisions and rank them from \best" (dominant) to \worst". We extend this method to provide notion of relative value of decisions where preferences over bene ts are taken into account. Finally, we show how our techniques can be successfully applied to the problem of selecting satellite images to monitor oil spills, to support electronic marketplaces for earth observation products.1 Introduction This paper presents two methods for evaluating and ranking (respectively) decisions using assumption-based argumentation (ABA) frameworks [4,13,14]. These ABA frameworks can be used for representing the knowledge of intelligent agents that autonomously make the best decision, e.g. by choosing the \best" items/ services available in a service-oriented architecture, e.g. as envisaged in [32]. We de ne a notion of dominance to characterise \best" items, and show that these items are those that correspond, within the family of argumentation frameworks considered, to admissible arguments as de ned in [4,13]. Intuitively, the method relies upon comparing the value of di erent items by \arguing" about the bene ts they provide. The reason why an item provides a bene t is explained logically (by means of arguments). ABA allows to study collections of logically constructed arguments based upon assumptions. As we shall see, ABA frameworks are particularly adequate for representing and reasoning about the bene ts of items as well as for providing explanations to users. In practice, decision-makers do not always choose top-quality (\best") items, but often choose items which t their budget and have highest quality/price ratio. In this context, it is useful to assess numerically the quality or relative quality of items. We propose a novel criterion (or \semantics", as understood in argumentation) for choosing sets of assumptions and arguments. This criterion

show abstract

Section: Degrees Of Admissibilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This problem has been proposed by GMV S.A. 6 , building upon their extensive eld experience. The full problem is described in [31].…”

Section: Degrees Of Admissibilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: B3 = Ftemperature Distinguishable; Infrared Radiometer 3 Temmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Dominant Decisions by Argumentation Agents

Matt

Toni

Vaccari

2010

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, since the attacking arguments may themselves be attacked, we need to find a way to systematically propagate the values in the network and determine equilibrium values for the nodes based on their interactions, much in the spirit of an interaction-based valuation [8]. This is akin to finding the extensions in a traditional network.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One of the first approaches was proposed in [4] where the weight of an argument is used to express its relative strength for a particular audience. Besnard and Hunter proposed a categoriser function that assigned a value to a tree of arguments [5]; Cayrol and Lagasquie-Schiex introduced the concept of graduality in the valuation of arguments in [8]; and other examples of systems using weights in one form or another include [3,13,2,6,23,19]. The novelty of our approach is in the use of the weights to represent the support of the community for both arguments and attacks and in the way that equilibrium values for these components are calculated using a system of equations.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Numerical Approach to the Merging of Argumentation Networks

Gabbay

Rodrigues

2012

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. In this paper, we propose a numerical approach to the problem of merging of argumentation networks. The idea is to consider an augmented network containing the arguments and attacks of all networks to be merged and then associate a weight to each of its components based on how they are perceived by the agents associated with the local networks. The combined weighted network is then used to define a system of equations from which the overall strength of the arguments is calculated.

show abstract

Social validation of collective annotations: Definition and experiment

Cabanac

Chevalier

Chrisment

et al. 2009

J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

People taking part in argumentative debates through collective annotations face a highly cognitive task when trying to estimate the group's global opinion. In order to reduce this effort, we propose in this paper to model such debates prior to evaluating their "social validation." Computing the degree of global confirmation (or refutation) enables the identification of consensual (or controversial) debates. Readers as well as prominent information systems may thus benefit from this information. The accuracy of the social validation measure was tested through an online study conducted with 121 participants. We compared their human perception of consensus in argumentative debates with the results of the three proposed social validation algorithms. Their efficiency in synthesizing opinions was demonstrated by the fact that they achieved an accuracy of up to 84%. Introduction and MotivationsAnnotating paper documents is a common activity practiced since the early middle ages (Fraenkel & Klein, 1999). Field studies show that readers still make extensive use of annotations nowadays (Marshall, 1998;Wolfe & Neuwirth, 2001). Although seemingly insignificant, they actually facilitate key purposes such as "active reading" by supporting critical thinking while reading (Adler & van Doren, 1972), learning by facilitating document appropriation, and proofreading, among many others. With the widespread adoption of digital documents both in the workplace and at home, people have felt frustrated at not being able to annotate them (Sellen & Harper, 2003, p. 96). Such a need led both research labs and companies to design a plethora of annotation systems-mostly targeting Web documents-since the 1990s (Wolfe, 2002). At first, they implemented the usual paper-based annotation functions, mainly for personal use. Then, taking advantage of modern computer storage and networking capabilities, annotation systems provided novel features for collective use. In particular, they enabled annotation sharing through dedicated servers, so that users could view and access them in context, i.e., within the annotated document. Moreover, subsequent readers may later reply to any annotation or any reply in turn, thus forming a debate anchored to the discussed passage. Such a debate is also called a "discussion thread" (e.g., Figure 1).As an asynchronous way of communicating, collective annotations (i.e., annotations along with their discussion threads) are useful at two levels:• From the readers' point of view, collective annotations enable them to discuss document passages in context. This is an advantage in comparison with Internet bulletin boards and forums where one needs to explain the context of his/her post to be understood. Moreover, feedback about a given annotated document is directly accessible to readers, whereas it would be scattered over multiple sources otherwise. Besides being useful for readers, authors also benefit from collective annotations as they can improve their documents by taking into account the associated remarks.• For syste...

show abstract

Graduality in Argumentation

Cited by 103 publications

References 17 publications

Dominant Decisions by Argumentation Agents

Dominant Decisions by Argumentation Agents

A Numerical Approach to the Merging of Argumentation Networks

Social validation of collective annotations: Definition and experiment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About