Abstract
We conduct comparative analysis of two sources of argumentation-related information to assess validity of scenarios of interaction between agents. The first source is an overall structure of a scenario, which included communicative actions in addition to attack relations and is learned from previous experience of multi-agent interactions. In our earlier studies we proposed a concept-based learning technique for this source. Scenarios are represented by directed graphs with labeled vertices (for communicative actions) and arcs (for temporal and attack relations). The second source is a traditional machinery to handle argumentative structure of a dialogue, assessing the validity of individual claims. We build a system where data for both sources are visually specified, to assess a validity of customer complaints. Evaluation of contribution of each source shows that both sources of argumentation-related information are essential for assessment of multi-agent scenarios. We conclude that concept learning of scenario structure should be augmented by defeasibility analysis of individual claims to successfully reason about scenario truthfulness.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Chesñevar, C., Maguitman, A., Loui, R.: Logical Models of Argument. ACM Computing Surveys 32(4), 337–383 (2000)
Chesñevar, C., Maguitman, A.: An Argumentative Approach for Assessing Natural Language Usage based on the Web Corpus. In: Proc. Of the ECAI 2004 Conf., Valencia, Spain, pp. 581–585 (2004)
Fum, D., Missiera, F.D., Stoccob, A.: The cognitive modeling of human behavior: Why a model is (sometimes) better than 10,000 words. Cognitive Systems Research 8 - 3, 135–142 (2007)
Galitsky, B., Kuznetsov, S., Samokhin, M.: Analyzing Conflicts with Concept-Based Learning. In: ICCS 2005, Kassel, Germany (2005)
Galitsky, B., Kovalerchuk, B., Kuznetsov, S.O.: Learning Common Outcomes of Communicative Actions Represented by Labeled Graphs. In: ICCS 2007, pp. 387–400 (2007)
Galitsky, B.: Reasoning about mental attitudes of complaining customers. Knowledge-Based Systems Elsevier 19(7), 592–615 (2006)
Galitsky, B.: Merging deductive and inductive reasoning for processing textual descriptions of inter-human conflicts. J. Intelligent Info Systems 27(1), 21–48 (2006)
Galitsky, B., Gonzalez M.P., Chesnevar C.: Processing Customer Complaints Scenarios through Argument-Based Decision Making. Decision-Support Systems (in the press, 2008)
Ganter, B., Kuznetsov, S.: Pattern Structures and Their Projections. In: Delugach, H.S., Stumme, G. (eds.) ICCS 2001. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2120, pp. 129–142. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)
García, A., Simari, G.: Defeasible Logic Programming: an argumentative approach. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 4(1), 95–138 (2004)
Kuznetsov, S.O.: Learning of Simple Conceptual Graphs from Positive and Negative Examples. In: Żytkow, J.M., Rauch, J. (eds.) PKDD 1999. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1704, pp. 384–391. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)
Rahwan, I., Ramchurn, S., Jennings, N., McBurney, P., Parsons, S., Sonenberg, L.: Argumentation-based negotiation. In Knowl. Eng. Rev. 18(4), 343–375 (2003)
Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: Argument-based logic programming with defeasible priorities. J. of Applied Non-classical logics 7, 25–75 (1997)
Prakken, H., Vreeswijk, G.: Logical Systems for Defeasible Argumentation. In: Gabbay, D., Guenther, F. (eds.) Handbook of Phil. Logic, pp. 219–318. Kluwer, Dordrecht (2002)
Parsons, S., Wooldridge, M., Amgoud, L.: An analysis of formal inter-agent dialogues. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, Bologna (2002)
Rao, A.S., Georgeff, M.P.: BDI agents: From Theory to Practice. Technical note 56 (1995)
Sham, S.B.: There’s Nothing Like a Good Argument. IEEE Software, Requirements Engineering column, 21–23 (September-October 2007)
Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning and logic programming and n-person games. Artificial intelligence 77, 321–357 (1995)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2008 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Galitsky, B.A., Kuznetsov, S.O. (2008). Scenario Argument Structure vs Individual Claim Defeasibility: What Is More Important for Validity Assessment?. In: Eklund, P., Haemmerlé, O. (eds) Conceptual Structures: Knowledge Visualization and Reasoning. ICCS 2008. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 5113. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-70596-3_20
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-70596-3_20
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-70595-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-70596-3
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)