Computational models of argumentation

The computational study of argumentation concerns two aspects: reasoning and dialogue.

Argumentation as a form of reasoning makes explicit the reasons for the conclusions that are drawn and how conflicts between reasons are resolved. Systems for argumentation-based inference were orginally developed in the field of nonmonotonic logic, which formalises qualitative reasoning with incomplete, uncertain or inconsistent information. Argument-based systems have been very successful as nonmonotonic logics, in my opinion since they are based on very natural concepts, such as argument, counterargument, rebuttal and defeat. For an early overview of this field see my handbook chapter with Gerard Vreeswijk.

My first contribution to this field (with Giovanni Sartor) was a system with the first published argument game for grounded semantics, and with one of the first mechanisms for arguing about preferences (Prakken & Sartor 1997). Recently I published a paper on An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments (now called the ASPIC+ framework), in which I try to integrate the work of Dung, Pollock, Vreeswijk, and others. Currently I am working with Sanjay Modgil on illustrating the potential of ASPIC+ as a general framework for structured argumentation. See our joint papers at COMMA-10 and IJCAI-11.

In models of inter-agent dialogue, argumentation is important when a conflict of opinion arises between negotiating or collaborating agents. Agents may disagree, for instance, about the pros and cons of alternative proposals, or they may disagree about the factual basis of such proposals. Argumentation as a kind of dialogue provides a natural mechanism for the resolution of such disagreements. I am interested in dialogical models of argumentation, with applications to multi-agent systems, legal reasoning and social media. Here the focus is on designing protocols and strategies for dialogues with argumentation.

In my Synthese 2001 article on dynamic disputes I studied fairness and effectiveness results for argument games where agents exchange arguments in a dynamic situation, without predefined knowledge bases. These results are defined in termes of a notion of relevance of dialogue moves. In my JLC 2005 article on Coherence and Flexibility in Dialogue Games for Argumentation I extended this work to dialogue games with speech acts other than the exchange of arguments, such as challenging or conceding a claim. I recently also wrote an overview of work on Formal systems for persuasion dialogue.

Associations, interest groups, resources ...

Workshops and Conferences

Future:

Past:

Books and journals

Research projects

Software, games, etc..

Researchers

Leila Amgoud Pietro Baroni Trevor Bench-Capon Johan van Benthem Floris Bex Liz Black Simon Buckingham Shum Martin Caminada Jeffrey Conklin Phan Minh Dung Paul Dunne Tim van Gelder Tom Gordon Tony Hunter Sindhu Joseph Ron Loui Nicolas Maudet Peter McBurney Sanjay Modgil Simon Parsons John Pollock Iyad Rahwan Chris Reed Carles Sierra Guillermo Simari Peter Suber Francesca Toni Tangming Yuan