DISPUTool -- A tool for the Argumentative Analysis of Political Debates

in Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, {IJCAI-19} (2019, August 14)

Political debates are the means used by political candidates to put forward and justify their positions in front of the electors with respect to the issues at stake. Argument mining is a novel research ... [more ▼]

Political debates are the means used by political candidates to put forward and justify their positions in front of the electors with respect to the issues at stake. Argument mining is a novel research area in Artificial Intelligence, aiming at analyzing dis-course on the pragmatics level and applying a certain argumentation theory to model and automatically analyze textual data. In this paper, we present DISPUTool, a tool designed to ease the work of historians and social science scholars in analyzing the argumentative content of political speeches. More precisely, DISPUTool allows to explore and automatically identify argumentative components over the 39 political debates from the last 50 years of US presidential campaigns (1960-2016). [less ▲]

Prioritized norms in formal argumentation

in Journal of Logic and Computation (2018)

To resolve conflicts amongst norms, various non-monotonic formalisms can be used to perform prioritized normative reasoning. Meanwhile, formal argumentation provides a way to represent non-monotonic ... [more ▼]

To resolve conflicts amongst norms, various non-monotonic formalisms can be used to perform prioritized normative reasoning. Meanwhile, formal argumentation provides a way to represent non-monotonic logics. In this paper we propose a representation of prioritized normative reasoning by argumentation. Using hierarchical abstract normative systems (HANS), we define three kinds of prioritized normative reasoning approaches called Greedy, Reduction and Optimization. Then, after formulating an argumentation theory for a HANS, we show that for a totally ordered HANS, Greedy and Reduction can be represented in argumentation by applying the weakest link and the last link principles, respectively, and Optimization can be represented by introducing additional defeats capturing the idea that for each argument that contains a norm not belonging to the maximal obeyable set then this argument should be rejected. [less ▲]

Ethics by Design: Necessity or Curse?

in Proceedings of the 2018 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society AIES 2018, New Orleans, LA, USA, February 02-03, 2018 (2018)

Ethics by Design concerns the methods, algorithms and tools needed to endow autonomous agents with the capability to reason about the ethical aspects of their decisions, and the methods, tools and ... [more ▼]

Ethics by Design concerns the methods, algorithms and tools needed to endow autonomous agents with the capability to reason about the ethical aspects of their decisions, and the methods, tools and formalisms to guarantee that an agent's behavior remains within given moral bounds. In this context some questions arise: How and to what extent can agents understand the social reality in which they operate, and the other intelligences (AI, animals and humans) with which they co-exist? What are the ethical concerns in the emerging new forms of society, and how do we ensure the human dimension is upheld in interactions and decisions by autonomous agents?. But overall, the central question is: "Can we, and should we, build ethically-aware agents?" This paper presents initial conclusions from the thematic day of the same name held at PRIMA2017, on October 2017. [less ▲]

Prioritized Norms in Formal Argumentation

in Journal of Logic and Computation (2017), abs/1709.08034

To resolve conflicts among norms,various nonmonotonic formalisms can be used to perform prioritized normative reasoning. Meanwhile, formal argumentation provides a way to represent nonmonotonic logics. In ... [more ▼]

To resolve conflicts among norms,various nonmonotonic formalisms can be used to perform prioritized normative reasoning. Meanwhile, formal argumentation provides a way to represent nonmonotonic logics. In this paper, we propose a representation of prioritized normative reasoning by argumentation. Using hierarchical abstract normative systems, we define three kinds of prioritized normative reasoning approaches, called Greedy, Reduction, and Optimization. Then, after formulating an argumentation theory for a hierarchical abstract normative system, we show that for a totally ordered hierarchical abstract normative system, Greedy and Reduction can be represented in argumentation by applying the weakest link and the last link principles respectively, and Optimization can be represented by introducing additional defeats capturing implicit conflicts between arguments. [less ▲]

Handling Norms in Multi-Agent System by Means of Formal Argumentation

in IfCoLog Journal of Logics and Their Applications (2017)

Formal argumentation is used to enrich and analyse normative multi-agent systems in various ways. In this chapter, we discuss three examples from the literature of handling norms by means of formal ... [more ▼]

Formal argumentation is used to enrich and analyse normative multi-agent systems in various ways. In this chapter, we discuss three examples from the literature of handling norms by means of formal argumentation. First, we discuss how existing ways to resolve conflicts among norms using priorities can be represented in formal argumentation, by showing that the so-called Greedy and Reduction approaches can be represented using the weakest and the last link principles respectively. Based on such representation results, formal argumentation can be used to explain the detachment of obligations and permissions from hierarchical normative systems in a new way. Second, we discuss how formal argumentation can be used as a general theory for developing new approaches for normative reasoning, using a dynamic ASPIC-based legal argumentation theory. We show how existing logics of normative systems can be used to analyse such new argumentation systems. Third, we show how argumentation can be used to reason about other challenges in the area of normative multiagent systems as well, by discussing a model for arguing about legal interpretation. In particular, we show how fuzzy logic combined with formal argumentation can be used to reason about the adoption of graded categories and thus address the problem of open texture in normative interpretation. Our aim to discuss these three examples is to inspire new applications of formal argumentation to the challenges of normative reasoning in multiagent systems. [less ▲]

An ASPIC-based legal argumentation framework for deontic reasoning

in Computational Models of Argument (2014)

In the last years, argumentation theory has been exploited to reason about norms, argue about enforced obligations and permissions, and establish the validity of norms seen as argumentative claims. In ... [more ▼]

In the last years, argumentation theory has been exploited to reason about norms, argue about enforced obligations and permissions, and establish the validity of norms seen as argumentative claims. In this paper, we start from the dynamic legal argumentation framework recently proposed by Prakken and Sartor, and we extend their ASPIC-based system by introducing deontic modalities, to include also normative concepts like factual and deontic detachment, and normative dynamics. Properties of the original and proposed legal argumentation system are presented and discussed, and related to deontic logic and logics of normative systems. [less ▲]

Combining Norms, Roles, Dependence and Argumentation in Agreement Technologies.

in 25th Benelux Conference on Artificial Intelligence BNAIC'13. Delft, Nov. 7-8. (2013, November)

A major challenge for Agreement Technologies is the combination of existing technologies and rea- soning methods. In this paper we focus on the three core layers of the Agreement Technologies tower ... [more ▼]

A major challenge for Agreement Technologies is the combination of existing technologies and rea- soning methods. In this paper we focus on the three core layers of the Agreement Technologies tower, called Norms, Organization and Argumentation. We present a framework for arguing about agreements based on norms, roles and dependence, together with a case study from the sharing economy. [less ▲]

Argumentation Theoretic Foundations for Abstract Dependence Networks

in International Conference on Agreement Technologies, proceedings in Springer LNCS (2013)

In this paper we show how to argue about agreements based on de- pendence. First, we introduce a formal theory of arguing about agreements by instantiating Dung’s abstract theory of argumentation with ... [more ▼]

In this paper we show how to argue about agreements based on de- pendence. First, we introduce a formal theory of arguing about agreements by instantiating Dung’s abstract theory of argumentation with proposals for agree- ments represented as dependence networks. Second, we show that acceptable agreements are exchange based—satisfying the so-called do-ut-des principle— and not redundant. Third, to further decrease the number of proposals, we define a notion of minimal proposals. Roughly, all proposals can be split into a number of minimal sub-proposals such that if the proposal is acceptable, then its minimal sub-proposals are acceptable too. We show that minimal proposals satisfy the indecomposable do-ut-des property, i.e., they cannot be split into two nonempty sub-proposals with at most one shared agent. [less ▲]

A logic of argumentation for specification and verification of abstract argumentation frameworks

in Annals of Mathematics & Artificial Intelligence (2012), 66(1-4), 199-230

In this paper, we propose a logic of argumentation for the specification and verification (LA4SV) of requirements on Dung’s abstract argumentation frameworks. We distinguish three kinds of decision ... [more ▼]

In this paper, we propose a logic of argumentation for the specification and verification (LA4SV) of requirements on Dung’s abstract argumentation frameworks. We distinguish three kinds of decision problems for argumentation verification, called extension verification, framework verification, and specification verification respectively. For example, given a political requirement like “if the argument to increase taxes is accepted, then the argument to increase services must be accepted too,” we can either verify an extension of acceptable arguments, or all extensions of an argumentation framework, or all extensions of all argumentation frameworks satisfying a framework specification. We introduce the logic of argumentation verification to specify such requirements, and we represent the three verification problems of argumentation as model checking and theorem proving properties of the logic. Moreover, we recast the logic of argumentation verification in a modal framework, in order to express multiple extensions, and properties like transitivity and reflexivity of the attack relation. Finally, we introduce a logic of meta-argumentation where abstract argumentation is used to reason about abstract argumentation itself. We define the logic of meta-argumentation using the fibring methodology in such a way to represent attack relations not only among arguments but also among attacks. [less ▲]

Abstract Normative Systems: Semantics and Proof Theory

in PRINCIPLES OF KNOWLEDGE REPRESENTATION AND REASONING: PROCEEDINGS OF THE THIRTEENTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE (2012)

In this paper we introduce an abstract theory of normative reasoning, whose central notion is the generation of obligations, permissions and institutional facts from conditional norms. We present various ... [more ▼]

In this paper we introduce an abstract theory of normative reasoning, whose central notion is the generation of obligations, permissions and institutional facts from conditional norms. We present various semantics and their proof systems. The theory can be used to classify and compare new candidates for standards of normative reasoning, and to explore more elaborate forms of normative reasoning than studied thus far. [less ▲]