战争设计工程专家群体研讨模型*

针对战争设计工程中专家群体研讨问题,根据研讨的主题以及目标,将专家群体研讨划分为三类:寻求信息研讨、质询研讨和商议研讨。在研讨类型划分的基础上,建立了战争设计工程群体专家研讨模型。该模型主要用于对战争设计工程中专家群体研讨过程建模,有利于专家对研讨进程的了解。最后阐述了该模型在战争设计工程中的应用。     

Baseballs and arguments from fairness

This paper applies two argumentation schemes, argument from fairness and argument from lack of knowledge (along with other schemes of lesser prominence) to model the reasoning given by Judge McCarthy supporting his decision to divide the proceeds of a homerun baseball in the case of Popov v. Hayashi. Several versions of both schemes are explained and discussed, and then applied to the argumentation given by Judge McCarthy as the basis of the reasoning used to arrive at his decision. The scheme for argument from fairness is shown to be based on a special principle in Perelman’s theory of justice.     

一种计算逻辑结果支持度的新方法

在R.Haenni构造的概率推理系统中,给出了一种基于条件概率思想计算逻辑结果支持度的新方法,将该方法应用于一个逻辑电路中元件是否正常的可能性判定。     

Developing argumentation processing agents for computer-supported collaborative learning

In this study, an intelligent argumentation processing agent for computer-supported cooperative learning is proposed. Learners are first assigned to heterogeneous groups based on their learning styles questionnaire given right before the beginning of learning activities on the e-learning platform. The proposed argumentation processing agent then scrutinizes each learner’s learning portfolio on e-learning platform and automatically issues feedback messages in case devious argument or abnormal behavior that is unfitted to the learners’ learning style is detected. The Moodle (http://moodle.org), an open source software e-learning platform, is used to establish the cooperative learning environment for this study. The experimental results revealed that the learners benefited by the argumentation activity with the assistance of the proposed learning style aware argumentation processing agent.     

Formalizing value-guided argumentation for ethical systems design

The persuasiveness of an argument depends on the values promoted and demoted by the position defended. This idea, inspired by Perelman’s work on argumentation, has become a prominent theme in artificial intelligence research on argumentation since the work by Hafner and Berman on teleological reasoning in the law, and was further developed by Bench-Capon in his value-based argumentation frameworks. One theme in the study of value-guided argumentation is the comparison of values. Formal models involving value comparison typically use either qualitative or quantitative primitives. In this paper, techniques connecting qualitative and quantitative primitives recently developed for evidential argumentation are applied to value-guided argumentation. By developing the theoretical understanding of intelligent systems guided by embedded values, the paper is a step towards ethical systems design, much needed in these days of ever more pervasive AI techniques.     

Liar liar,pants on fire; or how to use subjective logic and argumentation to evaluate information from untrustworthy sources

This paper presents a non-prioritized belief change operator, designed specifically for incorporating new information from many heterogeneous sources in an uncertain environment. We take into account that sources may be untrustworthy and provide a principled method for dealing with the reception of contradictory information. We specify a novel Data-Oriented Belief Revision Operator, that uses a trust model, subjective logic, and a preference-based argumentation framework to evaluate novel information and change the agent’s belief set accordingly. We apply this belief change operator in a collaborative traffic scenario, where we show that (1) some form of trust-based non-prioritized belief change operator is necessary, and (2) in a direct comparison between our operator and a previous proposition, our operator performs at least as well in all scenarios, and significantly better in some.     

On the merging of Dung's argumentation systems

In this paper, the problem of deriving sensible information from a collection of argumentation systems coming from different agents is addressed. The underlying argumentation theory is Dung's one: each argumentation system gives both a set of arguments and the way they interact (i.e., attack or non-attack) according to the corresponding agent. The inadequacy of the simple, yet appealing, method which consists in voting on the agents' selected extensions calls for a new approach. To this purpose, a general framework for merging argumentation systems from Dung's theory of argumentation is presented. The objective is achieved through a three-step process: first, each argumentation system is expanded into a partial system over the set of all arguments considered by the group of agents (reflecting that some agents may easily ignore arguments pointed out by other agents, as well as how such arguments interact with her own ones); then, merging is used on the expanded systems as a way to solve the possible conflicts between them, and a set of argumentation systems which are as close as possible to the whole profile is generated; finally, voting is used on the selected extensions of the resulting systems so as to characterize the acceptable arguments at the group level.     

Matching couples with Scarf’s algorithm

In a seminal paper Phan Minh Dung (Artif. Intell. 77(2), 321–357, 1995) developed the theory of abstract argumentation frameworks (AFs), which has remained a pivotal point of reference for research in AI and argumentation ever since. This paper assesses the merits of Dung’s theory from an epistemological point of view. It argues that, despite its prominence in AI, the theory of AFs is epistemologically flawed. More specifically, abstract AFs don’t provide a normatively adequate model for the evaluation of rational, multi-proponent controversy. Different interpretations of Dung’s theory may be distinguished. Dung’s intended interpretation collides with basic principles of rational judgement suspension. The currently prevailing knowledge base interpretation ignores relevant arguments when assessing proponent positions in a debate. It is finally suggested that abstract AFs be better understood as a paraconsistent logic, rather than a theory of real argumentation.     

Who controls our data? The legal reasoning of the European Court of Justice in Wirtschaftsakademie Schleswig-Holstein and Tietosuojavaltuutettu v Jehovan todistajat

This paper analyses two judgments from the European Court of Justice. Both were delivered soon after the new Data Protection Regulation became applicable. The argumentation in the judgments provides timely clarification on certain key concepts in European data protection law. As the analysis will show, the ECJ continues its broad interpretation of the parties responsible for data processing. The judgments are generally compatible with the Court’s previous case law, which seeks to fill any potential gaps in the protection of individuals’ privacy rights. Hence, the aims of data protection rules are predominately interpreted by the Court within a fundamental rights framework. Even though the cases have certain significant differences, the conclusions to be drawn are similar: the argumentation of the Court is focused on data protection throughout. Moreover, the Court emphasises strong protection of personal data in all kinds of situations, even those where other rights could also be relevant.     

Argumentation frameworks as constraint satisfaction problems

Argumentation is a promising approach for defeasible reasoning. It consists of justifying each plausible conclusion by arguments. Since the available information may be inconsistent, a conclusion and its negation may both be justified. The arguments are thus said to be conflicting. The main issue is how to evaluate the arguments. Several semantics were proposed for that purpose. The most important ones are: stable, preferred, complete, grounded and admissible. A semantics is a set of criteria that should be satisfied by a set of arguments, called extension, in order to be acceptable. Different decision problems related to these semantics were defined (like whether an argumentation framework has a stable extension). It was also shown that most of these problems are intractable. Consequently, developing algorithms for these problems is not trivial and thus the implementation of argumentation systems not obvious. Recently, some solutions to this problem were found. The idea is to use a reduction method where a given problem is translated in another one like SAT or ASP. This paper follows this line of research. It studies how to encode the problem of computing the extensions of an argumentation framework (under each of the previous semantics) as a constraint satisfaction problem (CSP). Such encoding is of great importance since it makes it possible to use the very efficient solvers (developed by the CSP community) for computing the extensions. Our encodings take advantage of existing reductions to SAT problems in the case of Dung’s abstract framework. Among the various ways of translating a SAT problem into a CSP one, we propose the most appropriate one in the argumentation context. We also provide encodings in case two other families of argumentation frameworks: the constrained version of Dung’s abstract framework and preference-based argumentation framework.     

Implementation of Web‐based argumentation in facilitating elementary school students to learn environmental issues

This research develops a Web‐based argumentation system named the Web‐based Interactive Argumentation System (WIAS). WIAS can provide teachers with the scaffolding for argumentation instruction. Students can propose their statements, collect supporting evidence and share and discuss with peers online. This research adopts a quasi‐experimental design, applying WIAS to the teaching of environmental issues, including mudslides, global warming and nuclear power. Fifty‐seven elementary school fifth graders from two classes participated in this research. With each class as a unit, they were divided into the WIAS group (n = 30) and the traditional argumentation instruction (TAI) group (n = 27). Before research, all students took the pre‐test of the ‘achievement test for environmental issues (ATEI)’ and the ‘environmental literacy scale (ELS).’ Then all students received argumentation training and six classes of argumentation instruction. Students in the WIAS group performed argumentation in the WIAS, while those in the TAI group performed argumentation in a traditional classroom. After the six‐class argumentation instruction, all students took the post‐test of the ATEI and ELS. The results show that students in the WIAS group have significantly better learning effectiveness than those in the TAI group. Students in the WIAS group also exhibited significantly better improvement in their environmental literacy.     

Intelligent Systems to Support Deliberative Democracy in Environmental Regulation

Among normative models for democracy, the Deliberative model suggests that public policy decisions should be made only following rational, public deliberation of alternative courses of action. We argue that such a model is particularly appropriate for the assessment of environmental and health risks of new substances and technologies, and for the development of appropriate regulatory responses. To give operational effect to these ideas, we propose a dialectical argumentation formalism for an intelligent system within which deliberative debates about risk and regulation can be conducted. Our formalism draws on various philosophies of argumentation, scientific and moral discourse, and communicative action, due to Toulmin, Pera, Alexy and Habermas.     

Dialectical Argumentation with Argumentation Schemes: An Approach to Legal Logic

This paper describes an approach to legal logic based on the formal analysis of argumentation schemes. Argumentation schemes a notion borrowed from the .eld of argumentation theory - are a kind of generalized rules of inference, in the sense that they express that given certain premises a particular conclusion can be drawn. However, argumentation schemes need not concern strict, abstract, necessarily valid patterns of reasoning, but can be defeasible, concrete and contingently valid, i.e., valid in certain contexts or under certain circumstances. A method is presented to analyze argumentation schemes and it is shown how argumentation schemes can be embedded in a formal model of dialectical argumentation.     

Modular argumentation for modelling legal doctrines in common law of contract

To create a programming environment for contract dispute resolution, we propose an extension of assumption-based argumentation into modular assumption-based argumentation in which different modules of argumentation representing different knowledge bases for reasoning about beliefs and facts and for representation and reasoning with the legal doctrines could be built and assembled together. A distinct novel feature of modular argumentation in compare with other modular logic-based systems like Prolog is that it allows references to different semantics in the same module at the same time, a feature critically important for application of argumentation in legal domains like contract dispute resolution where the outcomes of court cases often depend on whether credulous or skeptical modes of reasoning were applied by the contract parties. We apply the new framework to model the doctrines of contract breach and mutual mistake.     

Pre-argumentative reasoning

Intelligent agents configure a new generation of virtual entities that perform various autonomous tasks on behalf of others, namely the humans. On the other hand, the information society requires the development of new and more intelligent methods, tools and theories to analyse, define, model and specify agent-based systems. It is under this presupposition that in this work are introduced a pre-argumentative reasoning scheme, which need to be able to take into account, in a negotiation, factors such as temporality, priority, delegation, gratitude and agreement, enabling the agents to react and pro-act accordingly. This argument-based negotiation among agents has much to gain from the use of Extended Logic Programming and Incomplete Information, in terms of the argument's evaluation. Indeed, it is based on this substratum that are presented the bases for a pre-contract negotiation via argumentation, where pre-contract negotiation will be defined as a protocol which, once enforced, will allow the exchange of messages containing proposals, counter-proposals, critiques, justifications or even explanations. The terms of a negotiation are also set, adjusting the contract according to the agent's knowledge base. In fact, an important contribution of this work relies on the presentation of the basic definitions and the general model of pre-contract-based negotiations via argumentation.