This paper describes a preliminary proposal of an argumentation-based approach to modeling articulated decision support contexts. The proposed approach encompasses a variety of argument and attack schemes aimed at representing basic knowledge and reasoning patterns for decision support. Some of the defined attack schemes involve attacks directed towards other attacks, which are not allowed in traditional argumentation frameworks but turn out to be useful as a knowledge and reasoning modeling tool: in particular, we demonstrate their use to support what-if reasoning capabilities, which are of primary importance in decision support. Formal backing to this approach is provided by the AFRA formalism, a recently proposed extension of Dung’s argumentation framework. A literature example concerning a decision problem about medical treatments is adopted to illustrate the approach.

An understanding of the policy and resource availability constraints under which others operate is important for effectively developing and resourcing plans in a multi-agent context. Such constraints (or norms) are not necessarily public knowledge, even within a team of collaborating agents. What is required are mechanisms to enable agents to keep track of who might have and be willing to provide the resources required for enacting a plan by modeling the policies of others regarding resource use, information provision, etc. We propose a technique that combines machine learning and argumentation for identifying and modeling the policies of others. Furthermore, we demonstrate the utility of this novel combination of techniques through empirical evaluation.

In the The use of argumentation for decision support is not new, remainder of the paper, we motivate our approach by using a with a long history of studies such as (Amgoud and Prade group decision making setting in clinical oncology, present a 2009; Amgoud and Vesic 2009; Amgoud, Dimopoulos, and formal framework, and procedural basis for mixed initiative Moraitis 2008; Fox et al. 2007; Amgoud and Prade 2006; argumentation and finally describe a clinical group decision Atkinson, Bench-Capon, and Modgil 2006; Rehg, McBurney, support system that implements this framework.

Argumentation is now a very fertile area of research in Artificial Intelligence. Yet, most approaches to reasoning with arguments in AI are based on a normative perspective, relying on intuition as to what constitutes correct reasoning, sometimes aided by purpose-built hypothetical examples. For these models to be useful in agent-human argumentation, they can benefit from an alternative, positivist perspective that takes into account the empirical reality of human reasoning. To give a flavour of the kinds of lessons that this methodology can provide, we report on a psychological study exploring simple reinstatement in argumentation semantics. Empirical results show that while reinstatement is cognitively plausible in principle, it does not yield full recovery of the argument status, a notion not captured in Dung's classical model. This result suggests some possible avenues for research relevant to making formal models of argument more useful.

We study the notion of informedness in a client-consultant setting. Using a software simulator, we examine the extent to which it pays off for consultants to provide their clients with advice that is well-informed, or with advice that is merely meant to appear to be well-informed. The latter strategy is beneficial in that it costs less resources to keep up-to-date, but carries the risk of a decreased reputation if the clients discover the low level of informedness of the consultant. Our experimental results indicate that under different circumstances, different strategies yield the optimal results (net profit) for the consultants.

This paper presents an argumentation-based interpreter for Golog programs. Traditional Golog interpreters are not designed to find the most preferred executions of a program from the perspective of an agent. Existing techniques developed to discover these executions are limited in terms of how the preferences of an agent can be expressed, and the variety of preference types that can be used to guide search for a solution. The presented work combines the use of argumentation to compare executions relative to a set of general comparison principles, and the theory behind best first search to reduce the cost of the search process. To the best of our knowledge this is the first work to integrate argumentation and the interpretation of Golog programs, and to use argumentation as a tool for best first search.

This paper discusses a process of argumentation. We propose an algorithm for dynamic treatment of argumentation in which all lines of argumentation are executed in succession, and the agent's knowledge base can change during argumentation. We show that there exists a case in which an agent dynamically loses argumentation that would be considered won by a static analysis. We also show that the algorithm terminates, and describe acceptable arguments that are obtained after the argumentation.

Dung's abstract theory of argumentation has become established as a general framework for various species of non-monotonic reasoning, and reasoning in the presence of conflict. A Dung framework consists of arguments related by attacks, and the extensions of a framework, and so the status of arguments, are defined under different semantics. Developments of Dung's work have also defined argument labellings as an alternative way of characterising extensions, and dialectical argument game proof theories for establishing the status of individual arguments. Recently, Extended Argumentation Frameworks extend Dung's theory so that arguments not only attack arguments, but attacks themselves. In this way, the extended theory provides an abstract framework for principled integration of meta-level argumentation about defeasible preferences applied to resolve conflicts between object level arguments. In this paper we formalise labellings and argument games for a selection of Dung's semantics defined for the extended frameworks.

Argumentation is a reasoning model based on the construction and evaluation of arguments. Dung has proposed an abstract argumentation framework in which arguments are assumed to have the same strength. This assumption is unfortunately not realistic. Consequently, three main extensions of the framework have been proposed in the literature. The basic idea is that if an argument is stronger than its attacker, the attack fails. The aim of the paper is twofold: First, it shows that the three extensions of Dung framework may lead to unintended results. Second, it proposes a new approach that takes into account the strengths of arguments, and that ensures sound results. We start by presenting two minimal requirements that any preference-based argumentation framework should satisfy, namely the conflict-freeness of arguments extensions and the generalization of Dung’s framework. Inspired from works on handling inconsistency in knowledge bases, the proposed approach defines a binary relation on the powerset of arguments. The maximal elements of this relation represent the extensions of the new framework.

Recently, Argumentation Mechanism Design (ArgMD) was introduced as a new paradigm for studying argumentation among self-interested agents using game-theoretic techniques. Preliminary results showed a condition under which a direct mechanism based on Dung's grounded semantics is strategy-proof (i.e. truth enforcing). But these early results dealt with a highly restricted form of agent preferences, and assumed agents can only hide, but not lie about, arguments. In this paper, we characterise strategy-proofness under grounded semantics for a more realistic preference class (namely, focal arguments). We also provide the first analysis of the case where agents can lie.