References of "Caminada, Martin 40020435"
     in
Bookmark and Share    
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailQuantifying disagreement in argument-based reasoning
Booth, Richard UL; Caminada, Martin UL; Podlaszewski, Mikołaj UL et al

in 11th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2012) (2012)

An argumentation framework can be seen as expressing, in an abstract way, the conflicting information of an underlying logical knowledge base. This conflicting information often allows for the presence of ... [more ▼]

An argumentation framework can be seen as expressing, in an abstract way, the conflicting information of an underlying logical knowledge base. This conflicting information often allows for the presence of more than one possible reasonable position (extension/labelling) which one can take. A relevant question, therefore, is how much these positions differ from each other. In the current paper, we will examine the issue of how to define meaningful measures of distance between the (complete) labellings of a given argumentation framework. We provide concrete distance measures based on argument-wise label difference, as well as based on the notion of critical sets, and examine their properties. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 32 (6 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailOn Judgment Aggregation in Abstract Argumentation
Caminada, Martin UL; Pigozzi, Gabriella UL

in Autonomous Agents & Multi-Agent Systems (2011), 22(1), 64102

Judgment aggregation is a field in which individuals are required to vote for or against a certain decision (the conclusion) while providing reasons for their choice. The reasons and the conclusion are ... [more ▼]

Judgment aggregation is a field in which individuals are required to vote for or against a certain decision (the conclusion) while providing reasons for their choice. The reasons and the conclusion are logically connected propositions. The problem is how a collective judgment on logically interconnected propositions can be defined from individual judgments on the same propositions. It turns out that, despite the fact that the individuals are logically consistent, the aggregation of their judgments may lead to an inconsistent group outcome, where the reasons do not support the conclusion. However, in this paper we claim that collective irrationality should not be the only worry of judgment aggregation. For example, judgment aggregation would not reject a consistent combination of reasons and conclusion that no member voted for. In our view this may not be a desirable solution. This motivates our research about when a social outcome is ‘compatible’ with the individuals’ judgments. The key notion that we want to capture is that any individual member has to be able to defend the collective decision. This is guaranteed when the group outcome is compatible with its members views. Judgment aggregation problems are usually studied using classical propositional logic. However, for our analysis we use an argumentation approach to judgment aggregation problems. Indeed the question of how individual evaluations can be combined into a collective one can also be addressed in abstract argumentation. We introduce three aggregation operators that satisfy the condition above, and we offer two definitions of compatibility. Not only does our proposal satisfy a good number of standard judgment aggregation postulates, but it also avoids the problem of individual members of a group having to become committed to a group judgment that is in conflict with their own individual positions. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 50 (1 UL)
Peer Reviewed
See detailQuantifying disagreement in argument-based reasoning
Booth, Richard UL; Caminada, Martin UL; Podlaszewski, Mikołaj UL et al

Scientific Conference (2011)

Detailed reference viewed: 138 (3 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailA logical account of formal argumentation
Caminada, Martin UL; Gabbay, Dov M. UL

in Studia Logica (2009)

In the current paper, we re-examine how abstract argumentation can be formulated in terms of labellings, and how the resulting theory can be applied in the field of modal logic. In particular, we are able ... [more ▼]

In the current paper, we re-examine how abstract argumentation can be formulated in terms of labellings, and how the resulting theory can be applied in the field of modal logic. In particular, we are able to express the (complete) extensions of an argumentation framework as models of a set of modal logic formulas that represents the argumentation framework. Using this approach, it becomes possible to define the grounded extension in terms of modal logic entailment. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 57 (2 UL)