Approximating Agreements in Argumentation Dialogues
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.
The author is very grateful to the anonymous referees for their useful comments.
- 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
- 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
- 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_32CrossRefGoogle 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
- 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