Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Semantics of Opinion Transitions in Multi-Agent Forum Argumentation

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Book cover PRICAI 2019: Trends in Artificial Intelligence (PRICAI 2019)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 11670))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 2079 Accesses

Abstract

There are online forums such as changemyview where a user may submit his/her views on a subject matter, against which other users argue to try to change the opinions of his/hers. To measure the quality of such discussion, one useful criterion is how influential a given topic is to participating users’ opinion changes, as may be measured by the change (if any) in the proportion of supporting-objecting-mixed opinions by users. In this work, we incorporate the notion of agency into a previously proposed argumentation framework for issue-based information systems, QuAD, and formulate semantics of opinion transitions by newly considering agent-wise evaluation of QuAD initial scores.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    “CMV: There should exist a system to ensure politicians admit to their blatant lies” on reddit.com.

  2. 2.

    “\(\textsf {and}\)” instead of “and” is used in this paper when the context in which it appears strongly indicates truth-value comparisons. It follows the semantics of classical logic conjunction.

References

  1. Alchourrón, C.E., Gärdenfors, P., Makinson, D.: On the logic of theory change: partial meet contraction and revision functions. J. Symb. Logic 50, 510–530 (1985)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Amgoud, L., Ben-Naim, J.: Weighted bipolar argumentation graphs: axioms and semantics. In: IJCAI, pp. 5194–5198 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Amgoud, L., Besnard, P.: Bridging the gap between abstract argumentation systems and logic. In: Godo, L., Pugliese, A. (eds.) SUM 2009. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5785, pp. 12–27. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-04388-8_3

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. Arisaka, R., Bistarelli, S.: Defence outsourcing in argumentation. In: COMMA, pp. 353–360 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Arisaka, R., Satoh, K.: Balancing rationality and utility in logic-based argumentation with classical logic sentences and belief contraction. In: Baldoni, M., Chopra, A.K., Son, T.C., Hirayama, K., Torroni, P. (eds.) PRIMA 2016. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 9862, pp. 168–180. Springer, Cham (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44832-9_10

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Arisaka, R., Satoh, K.: Coalition formability semantics with conflict-eliminable sets of arguments. In: AAMAS, pp. 1469–1471 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Arisaka, R., Satoh, K., van der Torre, L.: Anything you say may be used against you in a court of law. In: Pagallo, U., Palmirani, M., Casanovas, P., Sartor, G., Villata, S. (eds.) AICOL 2015-2017. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 10791, pp. 427–442. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00178-0_29

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. Baroni, P., Rago, A., Toni, F.: From fine-grained properties to broad principles for gradual argumentation: a principled spectrum. Int. J. Approximate Reason. 105, 252–286 (2019)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Baroni, P., Romano, M., Toni, F., Aurisicchio, M., Bertanza, G.: Automatic evaluation of design alternatives with quantitative argumentation. Argument Comput. 6(1), 24–49 (2015)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. Brewka, G., Eiter, T.: Argumentation context systems: a framework for abstract group argumentation. In: Erdem, E., Lin, F., Schaub, T. (eds.) LPNMR 2009. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5753, pp. 44–57. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-04238-6_7

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.C.: On the acceptability of arguments in bipolar argumentation frameworks. In: Godo, L. (ed.) ECSQARU 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3571, pp. 378–389. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/11518655_33

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  12. Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.-C.: Bipolarity in argumentation graphs: towards a better understanding. In: Benferhat, S., Grant, J. (eds.) SUM 2011. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 6929, pp. 137–148. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-23963-2_12

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming, and n-person games. Artif. Intell. 77(2), 321–357 (1995)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Dunne, P.E., Hunter, A., McBurney, P., Parsons, S., Wooldridge, M.: Weighted argument systems: basic definitions, algorithms, and complexity results. Artif. Intell. 175(2), 457–486 (2011)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Gabbay, D.M., Garcez, A.S.D.: Logical modes of attack in argumentation networks. Stud. Logica. 93(2), 199–230 (2009)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Gabbay, D.M., Rodrigues, O.: An equational approach to the merging of argumentation networks. J. Logic Comput. 24(6), 1253–1277 (2014)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Introne, J., Laubacher, R., Olson, G., Malone, T.W.: The climate CoLab: large scale model-based collaborative planning. In: CTS, pp. 40–47 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Ito, T.: Towards agent-based large-scale decision support system: the effect of facilitator. In: HICSS (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Katsuno, H., Mendelzon, A.O.: On the difference between updating a knowledge base and revising it. In: Belief Revision. Cambridge University Press (1992)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Kunz, W., Rittel, H.W.J., Messrs, W., Dehlinger, H., Mann, T., Protzen, J.J.: Issues as elements of information systems. Technical report, University of California (1970)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Leite, J., Martins, J.: Social abstract argumentation. In: IJCAI, pp. 2287–2292 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Malone, T.W., Klein, M.: Harnessing collective intelligence to address global climate change. Innov. Technol. Gov. Global. 2(3), 15–26 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Menini, S., Cabrio, E., Tonelli, S., Villata, S.: Never retreat, never retract: argumentation analysis for political speeches. In: AAAI, pp. 4889–4896 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Patkos, T., Bikakis, A., Flouris, G.: A multi-aspect evaluation framework for comments on the social web. In: KR, pp. 593–596 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: Argument-based extended logic programming with defeasible priorities. J. Appl. Non-class. Logics 7, 25–75 (1997)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  26. Rago, A., Toni, F.: Quantitative argumentation debates with votes for opinion polling. In: An, B., Bazzan, A., Leite, J., Villata, S., van der Torre, L. (eds.) PRIMA 2017. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 10621, pp. 369–385. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69131-2_22

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  27. Rago, A., Toni, F., Aurisicchio, M., Baroni, P.: Discontinuity-free decision support with quantitative argumentation debates. In: KR, pp. 63–73 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Rienstra, T., Perotti, A., Villata, S., Gabbay, D.M., van der Torre, L.: Multi-sorted argumentation. In: Modgil, S., Oren, N., Toni, F. (eds.) TAFA 2011. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 7132, pp. 215–231. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-29184-5_14

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

We thank anonymous reviewers for suggestions on future work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Nagoya Institute of Technology, Nagoya, Japan

    Ryuta Arisaka & Takayuki Ito

Authors
  1. Ryuta Arisaka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Takayuki Ito
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ryuta Arisaka .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computing, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia

    Abhaya C. Nayak

  2. RIKEN Center for Integrative Medical Sciences, Yokohama, Japan

    Alok Sharma

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Arisaka, R., Ito, T. (2019). Semantics of Opinion Transitions in Multi-Agent Forum Argumentation. In: Nayak, A., Sharma, A. (eds) PRICAI 2019: Trends in Artificial Intelligence. PRICAI 2019. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 11670. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29908-8_54

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29908-8_54

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-29907-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-29908-8

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation