References of "Giacomin, Massimiliano"
     in
Bookmark and Share    
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailPresent and Future of Formal Argumentation (Dagstuhl Perspectives Workshop 15362)
Gabbay, Dov UL; Giacomin, Massimiliano; Liao, Beishui UL et al

in Dagstuhl Manifestos (2018), 7(1), 69--95

Formal Argumentation is emerging as a key reasoning paradigm building bridges among knowledge representation and reasoning in artificial intelligence, informal argumentation in philosophy and linguistics ... [more ▼]

Formal Argumentation is emerging as a key reasoning paradigm building bridges among knowledge representation and reasoning in artificial intelligence, informal argumentation in philosophy and linguistics, legal and ethical argumentation, mathematical and logical reasoning, and graph-theoretic reasoning. It aims to capture diverse kinds of reasoning and dialogue activities in the presence of uncertainty and conflicting information in a formal and intuitive way, with potential applications ranging from argumentation mining, via LegalTech and machine ethics, to therapy in clinical psychology. The turning point for the modern stage of formal argumentation theory, much similar to the introduction of possible worlds semantics for the theory of modality, is the framework and language of Dung’s abstract argumentation theory introduced in 1995. This means that nothing could remain the same as before 1995 — it should be a focal point of reference for any study of argumentation, even if it is critical about it. Now, in modal logic, the introduction of the possible worlds semantics has led to a complete paradigm shift, both in tools and new subjects of studies. This is still not fully true for what is going on in argumentation theory. The Dagstuhl workshop led to the first volume of a handbook series in formal argumentation, reflecting the new stage of the development of argumentation theory. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 85 (2 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailIntroduction to the special issue on Loops in Argumentation
Baroni, Pietro; Gabbay, Dov M. UL; Giacomin, Massimiliano

in J. Log. Comput. (2016), 26(4), 1051--1053

Detailed reference viewed: 57 (0 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailPresent and Future of Formal Argumentation
van der Torre, Leon UL; Giacomin, Massimiliano; Liao, Beishui et al

in Dagstuhl Reports (2016)

This report documents the program and the outcomes of Dagstuhl Perspectives Workshop 15362 “Present and Future of Formal Argumentation”. The goal of this Dagstuhl Perspectives Workshop was to gather the ... [more ▼]

This report documents the program and the outcomes of Dagstuhl Perspectives Workshop 15362 “Present and Future of Formal Argumentation”. The goal of this Dagstuhl Perspectives Workshop was to gather the world leading experts in formal argumentation in order to develop a SWOT (Strength, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) analysis of the current state of the research in this field and to draw accordingly some strategic lines to ensure its successful development in the future. A critical survey of the field has been carried out through individual presentations and collective discussions. Moreover, working group activity lead to identify several open problems in argumentation. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 101 (11 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailEncompassing Uncertainty in Argumentation Schemes.
van der Torre, Leon UL; Baroni, Pietro; Giacomin, Massimiliano et al

in Frontiers and Connections between Argumentation Theory and Natural Language Processing 2014. (2014)

In existing literature, little attention has been paid to the problems of how the un- certainty reflected by natural language text (e.g. verbal and linguistic uncertainty) can be explicitly formulated in ... [more ▼]

In existing literature, little attention has been paid to the problems of how the un- certainty reflected by natural language text (e.g. verbal and linguistic uncertainty) can be explicitly formulated in argumentation schemes, and how argumentation schemes enriched with various types of uncertainty can be exploited to support argumentation mining and evaluation. In this paper, we focus on the first problem, and introduce some preliminary ideas about how to clas- sify and encompass uncertainty in argu- mentation schemes [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 46 (4 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailOn the Input/Output behavior of argumentation frameworks
Baroni, Pietro; Boella, Guido; Cerutti, Federico et al

in Artificial Intelligence (2014)

This paper tackles the fundamental questions arising when looking at argumentation frameworks as interacting components, characterized by an Input/Output behavior, rather than as isolated monolithical ... [more ▼]

This paper tackles the fundamental questions arising when looking at argumentation frameworks as interacting components, characterized by an Input/Output behavior, rather than as isolated monolithical entities. This modeling stance arises naturally in some application contexts, like multi-agent systems, but, more importantly, has a crucial impact on several general application-independent issues, like argumentation dynamics, argument summarization and explanation, incremental computation, and inter-formalism translation. Pursuing this research direction, the paper introduces a general modeling approach and provides a comprehensive set of theoretical results putting the intuitive notion of Input/Output behavior of argumentation frameworks on a solid formal ground. This is achieved by combining three main ingredients. First, several novel notions are introduced at the representation level, notably those of argumentation framework with input, of argumentation multipole, and of replacement of multipoles within a traditional argumentation framework. Second, several relevant features of argumentation semantics are identified and formally characterized. In particular, the canonical local function provides an input-aware semantics characterization and a suite of decomposability properties are introduced, concerning the correspondences between semantics outcomes at global and local level. The third ingredient glues the former ones, as it consists of the investigation of some semantics-dependent properties of the newly introduced entities, namely S-equivalence of multipoles, S-legitimacy and S-safeness of replacements, and transparency of a semantics with respect to replacements. Altogether they provide the basis and draw the limits of sound interchangeability of multipoles within traditional frameworks. The paper develops an extensive analysis of all the concepts listed above, covering seven well-known literature semantics and taking into account various, more or less constrained, ways of partitioning an argumentation framework. Diverse examples, taken from the literature, are used to illustrate the application of the results obtained and, finally, an extensive discussion of the related literature is provided. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 115 (7 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailOn Input/Output Argumentation Frameworks
Baroni, Pietro UL; Boella, Guido UL; Cerutti, Federico et al

in Proceedings of COMMA (2012)

This paper introduces Input/Output Argumentation Frameworks, a novel approach to characterize the behavior of an argumentation framework as a sort of black box exposing a well-defined external interface ... [more ▼]

This paper introduces Input/Output Argumentation Frameworks, a novel approach to characterize the behavior of an argumentation framework as a sort of black box exposing a well-defined external interface. As a starting point, we define the novel notion of semantics decomposability and analyze complete, stable, grounded and preferred semantics in this respect. Then we show as a main result that, under grounded, complete, stable and credulous preferred semantics, Input/Output Argumentation Frameworks with the same behavior can be interchanged without affecting the result of semantics evaluation of other arguments interacting with them [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 36 (3 UL)