Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Approximating Agreements in Argumentation Dialogues

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Multi-Agent Systems and Agreement Technologies (EUMAS 2017, AT 2017)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 10767))

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 have a consensus among medical professionals is not feasible and might even be regarded as counterproductive. In this paper, we introduce an approach for expressing 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. Indeed, a lattice of agreement degrees can show evidence about whether or not it is acceptable to dismiss goals in order to maximize agreements regarding other goals.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Atkinson, K., et al.: Towards artificial argumentation. AI Mag. 38(3), 25–36 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Baral, C.: Knowledge Representation. Reasoning and Declarative Problem Solving. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  3. Baroni, P., Caminada, M., Giacomin, M.: An introduction to argumentation semantics. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 26(4), 365–410 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Baumann, R., Woltran, S.: The role of self-attacking arguments in characterizations of equivalence notions. J. Logic Comput. 24(14), 1293–1313 (2014)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Black, E., Hunter, A.: An inquiry dialogue system. Auton. Agents. Multi-Agent Syst. 19(2), 173–209 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bondarenko, A., Dung, P.M., Kowalski, R.A., Toni, F.: An abstract, argumentation-theoretic approach to default reasoning. Artif. Intell. 93, 63–101 (1997)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  7. Brewka, G., Niemelä, I., Syrjänen, T.: Logic programs with ordered disjunction. Comput. Intell. 20(2), 335–357 (2004)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  8. Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif. Intell. 77(2), 321–358 (1995)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  9. Dunne, P.E.: Computational properties of argument systems satisfying graph-theoretic constraints. Artif. Intell. 171(10–15), 701–729 (2007)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  10. Fan, X., Toni, F.: A general framework for sound assumption-based argumentation dialogues. Artif. Intell. 216, 20–54 (2014)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  11. García, A.J., Simari, G.R.: Defeasible logic programming: an argumentative approach. Theory Pract. Logic Program. 4(1–2), 95–138 (2004)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  12. Gelder, A.V., Ross, K.A., Schlipf, J.S.: The well-founded semantics for general logic programs. J. ACM 38(3), 620–650 (1991)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Governatori, G., Olivieri, F., Scannapieco, S., Rotolo, A., Cristani, M.: Strategic argumentation is NP-complete. In: ECAI 2014–21st European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 263 of Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, pp. 399–404. IOS Press (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Guerrero, E., Nieves, J.C., Lindgren, H.: Semantic-based construction of arguments: an answer set programming approach. Int. J. Approximate Reasoning 64, 54–74 (2015)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  15. Guerrero, E., Nieves, J.C., Lindgren, H.: An activity-centric argumentation framework for assistive technology aimed at improving health. Argument Comput. 7(1), 5–33 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Kljakovic, M.: Clinical disagreement: a silent topic in general practice. NZ. Fam. Physician 30(5), 358–360 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Kraus, S., Sycara, K.P., Evenchik, A.: Reaching agreements through argumentation: a logical model and implementation. Artif. Intell. 104(1–2), 1–69 (1998)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  18. Modgil, S., Prakken, H.: The ASPIC\({}^{\text{+ }}\) framework for structured argumentation: a tutorial. Argument Comput. 5(1), 31–62 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Nieves, J.C.: Expansion and equivalence relations on argumentation frameworks based on logic programs. In: Criado Pacheco, N., Carrascosa, C., Osman, N., Julián Inglada, V. (eds.) EUMAS/AT -2016. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 10207, pp. 375–389. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59294-7_32

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  20. Nieves, J.C., Lindgren, H.: Deliberative argumentation for service provision in smart environments. In: Bulling, N. (ed.) EUMAS 2014. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 8953, pp. 388–397. Springer, Cham (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17130-2_27

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  21. Nieves, J.C., Osorio, M., Cortés, U.: Supporting decision making in organ transplating using argumentation theory. In: LANMR 2006: 2nd Latin American Non-Monotonic Reasoning Workshop, pp. 9–14 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Ossowski, S.: Agreement Technologies. Springer, Dordrecht (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5583-3

    Book  Google Scholar 

  23. Parsons, S., Wooldridge, M., Amgoud, L.: Properties and complexity of some formal inter-agent dialogues. J. Logic Comput. 13(3), 347–376 (2003)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  24. Prakken, H.: Coherence and flexibility in dialogue games for argumentation. J. Logic Comput. 15(6), 1009–1040 (2005)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  25. Prakken, H.: Formal systems for persuasion dialogue. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 21(2), 163–188 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: Argument-based extended logic programming with defeasible priorities. J. Appl. Non-Classical Logics 7(1), 25–75 (1997)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  27. Rahwan, I., Simari, G.R. (eds.): Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence. Springer, Boston (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-98197-0

    Book  Google Scholar 

  28. Sierra, C., de Mantaras, R.L., Simoff, S.: The argumentative mediator. In: Criado Pacheco, N., Carrascosa, C., Osman, N., Julián Inglada, V. (eds.) EUMAS/AT -2016. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 10207, pp. 439–454. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59294-7_36

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  29. Tolchinsky, P., Cortés, U., Nieves, J.C., López-Navidad, A., Caballero, F.: Using arguing agents to increase the human organ pool for transplantation. In: Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Agents Applied in Health Care (IJCAI 2005) (2005)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author is very grateful to the anonymous referees for their useful comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computing Science, Umeå University, 901 87, Umeå, Sweden

    Juan Carlos Nieves

Authors
  1. Juan Carlos Nieves
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Juan Carlos Nieves .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Évry Val d'Essonne, Paris Saclay, France

    Francesco Belardinelli

  2. Polytechnic University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain

    Estefanía Argente

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Nieves, J.C. (2018). Approximating Agreements in Argumentation Dialogues. In: Belardinelli, F., Argente, E. (eds) Multi-Agent Systems and Agreement Technologies. EUMAS AT 2017 2017. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 10767. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01713-2_35

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01713-2_35

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-01712-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-01713-2

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation