Strategic argumentation: A game theoretical investigation

Argumentation is modelled as a game where the payoffs are measured in terms of the probability that the claimed conclusion is, or is not, defeasibly provable, given a history of arguments that have actually been exchanged, and given the probability of the factual premises. The probability of a conclusion is calculated using a standard variant of Defeasible Logic, in combination with standard probability calculus. It is a new element of the present approach that the exchange of arguments is analysed with game theoretical tools, yielding a prescriptive and to some extent even predictive account of the actual course of play. A brief comparison with existing argument-based dialogue approaches confirms that such a prescriptive account of the actual argumentation has been almost lacking in the approaches proposed so far.

VirtualECare: group decision supported by idea generation and argumentation

In the last years there has been a considerable increase in the number of people in need of intensive care, especially among the elderly, a phenomenon that is related to population ageing (Brown 2003). However, this is not exclusive of the elderly, as diseases as obesity, diabetes, and blood pressure have been increasing among young adults (Ford and Capewell 2007). As a new fact, it has to be dealt with by the healthcare sector, and particularly by the public one. Thus, the importance of finding new and cost effective ways for healthcare delivery are of particular importance, especially when the patients are not to be detached from their environments (WHO 2004). Following this line of thinking, a VirtualECare Multiagent System is presented in section 2, being our efforts centered on its Group Decision modules (Costa, Neves et al. 2007) (Camarinha-Matos and Afsarmanesh 2001).On the other hand, there has been a growing interest in combining the technological advances in the information society - computing, telecommunications and knowledge – in order to create new methodologies for problem solving, namely those that convey on Group Decision Support Systems (GDSS), based on agent perception. Indeed, the new economy, along with increased competition in today’s complex business environments, takes the companies to seek complementarities, in order to increase competitiveness and reduce risks. Under these scenarios, planning takes a major role in a company life cycle. However, effective planning depends on the generation and analysis of ideas (innovative or not) and, as a result, the idea generation and management processes are crucial. Our objective is to apply the GDSS referred to above to a new area. We believe that the use of GDSS in the healthcare arena will allow professionals to achieve better results in the analysis of one’s Electronically Clinical Profile (ECP). This attainment is vital, regarding the incoming to the market of new drugs and medical practices, which compete in the use of limited resources.

Modelling group decision simulation through argumentation

Group decision making plays an important role in today’s organisations. The impact of decision making is so high and complex, that rarely the decision making process is made individually. In Group Decision Argumentation, there is a set of participants, with different profiles and expertise levels, that exchange ideas or engage in a process of argumentation and counter-argumentation, negotiate, cooperate, collaborate or even discuss techniques and/or methodologies for problem solving. In this paper, it is proposed a Multi-Agent simulator for the behaviour representation of group members in a decision making process. Agents behave depending on rational and emotional intelligence and use persuasive argumentation to convince and make alternative choices.

LAID - a smart decision room with ambient intelligence for group decision making and argumentation support considering emotional aspects

Decision Making is one of the most important activities of the human being. Nowadays decisions imply to consider many different points of view, so decisions are commonly taken by formal or informal groups of persons. Groups exchange ideas or engage in a process of argumentation and counter-argumentation, negotiate, cooperate, collaborate or even discuss techniques and/or methodologies for problem solving. Group Decision Making is a social activity in which the discussion and results consider a combination of rational and emotional aspects. In this paper we will present a Smart Decision Room, LAID (Laboratory of Ambient Intelligence for Decision Making). In LAID environment it is provided the support to meeting room participants in the argumentation and decision making processes, combining rational and emotional aspects.

Evaluating the combination of relaxation and argumentation in ontology matching negotiation

No decorrer dos últimos anos, os agentes (inteligentes) de software foram empregues como um método para colmatar as dificuldades associadas com a gestão, partilha e reutilização de um crescente volume de informação, enquanto as ontologias foram utilizadas para modelar essa mesma informação num formato semanticamente explícito e rico. À medida que a popularidade da Web Semântica aumenta e cada vez informação é partilhada sob a forma de ontologias, o problema de integração desta informação amplifica-se. Em semelhante contexto, não é expectável que dois agentes que pretendam cooperar utilizem a mesma ontologia para descrever a sua conceptualização do mundo. Inclusive pode revelar-se necessário que agentes interajam sem terem conhecimento prévio das ontologias utilizadas pelos restantes, sendo necessário que as conciliem em tempo de execução num processo comummente designado por Mapeamento de Ontologias [1]. O processo de mapeamento de ontologias é normalmente oferecido como um serviço aos agentes de negócio, podendo ser requisitado sempre que seja necessário produzir um alinhamento. No entanto, tendo em conta que cada agente tem as suas próprias necessidades e objetivos, assim como a própria natureza subjetiva das ontologias que utilizam, é possível que tenham diferentes interesses relativamente ao processo de alinhamento e que, inclusive, recorram aos serviços de mapeamento que considerem mais convenientes [1]. Diferentes matchers podem produzir resultados distintos e até mesmo contraditórios, criando-se assim conflitos entre os agentes. É necessário que se proceda então a uma tentativa de resolução dos conflitos existentes através de um processo de negociação, de tal forma que os agentes possam chegar a um consenso relativamente às correspondências que devem ser utilizadas na tradução de mensagens a trocar. A resolução de conflitos é considerada uma métrica de grande importância no que diz respeito ao processo de negociação [2]: considera-se que existe uma maior confiança associada a um alinhamento quanto menor o número de conflitos por resolver no processo de negociação que o gerou. Desta forma, um alinhamento com um número elevado de conflitos por resolver apresenta uma confiança menor que o mesmo alinhamento associado a um número elevado de conflitos resolvidos. O processo de negociação para que dois ou mais agentes gerem e concordem com um alinhamento é denominado de Negociação de Mapeamentos de Ontologias. À data existem duas abordagens propostas na literatura: (i) baseadas em Argumentação (e.g. [3] [4]) e (ii) baseadas em Relaxamento [5] [6]. Cada uma das propostas expostas apresenta um número de vantagens e limitações. Foram propostas várias formas de combinação das duas técnicas [2], com o objetivo de beneficiar das vantagens oferecidas e colmatar as suas limitações. No entanto, à data, não são conhecidas experiências documentadas que possam provar tal afirmação e, como tal, não é possível atestar que tais combinações tragam, de facto, o benefício que pretendem. O trabalho aqui apresentado pretende providenciar tais experiências e verificar se a afirmação de melhorias em relação aos resultados das técnicas individuais se mantém. Com o objetivo de permitir a combinação e de colmatar as falhas identificadas, foi proposta uma nova abordagem baseada em Relaxamento, que é posteriormente combinada com as abordagens baseadas em Argumentação. Os seus resultados, juntamente com os da combinação, são aqui apresentados e discutidos, sendo possível identificar diferenças nos resultados gerados por combinações diferentes e possíveis contextos de utilização.

Argumentation as Distributed Belief Revision: Conflict Resolution in Decentralised Multi-agent Systems

Decentralised co-operative multi-agent systems are computational systems where conflicts are frequent due to the nature of the represented knowledge. Negotiation methodologies, in this case argumentation based negotiation methodologies, were developed and applied to solve unforeseeable and, therefore, unavoidable conflicts. The supporting computational model is a distributed belief revision system where argumentation plays the decisive role of revision. The distributed belief revision system detects, isolates and solves, whenever possible, the identified conflicts. The detection and isolation of the conflicts is automatically performed by the distributed consistency mechanism and the resolution of the conflict, or belief revision, is achieved via argumentation. We propose and describe two argumentation protocols intended to solve different types of identified information conflicts: context dependent and context independent conflicts. While the protocol for context dependent conflicts generates new consensual alternatives, the latter chooses to adopt the soundest, strongest argument presented. The paper shows the suitability of using argumentation as a distributed decentralised belief revision protocol to solve unavoidable conflicts.

Improving practical reasoning and argumentation

This thesis justifies the need for and develops a new integrated model of practical reasoning and argumentation. After framing the work in terms of what is reasonable rather than what is rational (chapter 1), I apply the model for practical argumentation analysis and evaluation provided by Fairclough and Fairclough (2012) to a paradigm case of unreasonable individual practical argumentation provided by mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik (chapter 2). The application shows that by following the model, Breivik is relatively easily able to conclude that his reasoning to mass murder is reasonable – which is understood to be an unacceptable result. Causes for the model to allow such a conclusion are identified as conceptual confusions ingrained in the model, a tension in how values function within the model, and a lack of creativity from Breivik. Distinguishing between dialectical and dialogical, reasoning and argumentation, for individual and multiple participants, chapter 3 addresses these conceptual confusions and helps lay the foundation for the design of a new integrated model for practical reasoning and argumentation (chapter 4). After laying out the theoretical aspects of the new model, it is then used to re-test Breivik’s reasoning in light of a developed discussion regarding the motivation for the new place and role of moral considerations (chapter 5). The application of the new model shows ways that Breivik could have been able to conclude that his practical argumentation was unreasonable and is thus argued to have improved upon the Fairclough and Fairclough model. It is acknowledged, however, that since the model cannot guarantee a reasonable conclusion, improving the critical creative capacity of the individual using it is also of paramount importance (chapter 6). The thesis concludes by discussing the contemporary importance of improving practical reasoning and by pointing to areas for further research (chapter 7).

Débattre : pratique de l'argumentation et inscription de l'identité dans une perspective textuelle et interactionnelle

L'objectif de la thèse est de rendre compte d'une pratique langagière particulière, le débat, et d'opérer ce travail à la fois à un niveau théorique - en tant qu'analyser la pratique du débat pose certaines questions aux sciences du langage - et à un niveau pratique - dans la mesure où la spécificité du débat repose sur certains observables qu'il s'agit d'identifier et de décrire et qui permettent à chacun de distinguer le débat d'autres formes de comportement, telles que l'anecdote, la dispute ou encore la réunion de travail.¦La thèse part du constat que la pratique du débat constitue un fait social attesté et reconnaissable comme tel, et ce aussi bien par les agents qui s'engagent dans son accomplissement que par un observateur externe. Le fait qu'aucune règle ne vienne pour autant décrire «ce qui fait débat» plaide pour l'adoption d'une perspective ethnométhodologique, sensible à la manière dont les agents pourvoient eux-mêmes, en agissant de façon méthodique et routinière, à la reconnaissabilité (accountability) des pratiques dans lesquelles ils s'engagent.¦La thèse questionne le caractère reconnaissable de la pratique du débat à partir de données originales. Le corpus est constitué de huit événements publics s'étant déroulés à l'Université de Lausanne et ayant été vidéo-enregistrés pour l'occasion. Ces rencontres ne relèvent donc pas d'événements télédiffusés, par exemple des débats de sociétés organisés par des chaînes de télévision. Il s'agit de confrontations verbales (de types « débats publics » ou « conférence-discussion ») où tous les participants, public compris, sont réunis en un même lieu et dans une même tranche temporelle.¦La thèse organise la réflexion en trois parties. Intitulée la parole en interaction médiatisée, la première partie est consacrée à la présentation et à la problématisation, grâce à divers extraits du corpus, des différentes dimensions analytiques mobilisées. Par l'articulation d'acquis en linguistique textuelle et énonciative et en analyse conversationnelle, il s'agit d'étudier la matérialité signifiante des actions verbales en lien avec les dynamiques discursives et interactionnelles dans lesquelles cette matérialité s'inscrit et prend sens. En d'autres termes, on considère la manière dont les unités linguistiques participent à l'accomplissement d'activités pratiques et les pressions que ces activités pratiques sont susceptibles d'exercer sur l'usage de ces unités. L'analyse du débat est en outre inscrite dans une approche multimodale des pratiques, qui entend dépasser l'analyse de la seule verbalité pour donner une place aux ressources corporelles, qu'il s'agisse de gestes, de mimiques ou de la répartition des participants dans l'espace.¦Une fois les différentes dimensions analytiques posées, les deux autres parties examinent chacune une composante - autrement dit un observable - qui spécifie le débat en tant que pratique langagière particulière. Mobilisant une approche dialogale de la pratique de l 'argumentation, la deuxième partie entend montrer que le débat gagne à être abordé comme un mode particulier de gestion du désaccord, fondé sur l'usage de ressources argumentatives. La troisième partie s'intéresse finalement à la problématique de l'inscription de l'identité dans le langage et dans l'interaction et considère la manière dont les traits identitaires que les agents s'attribuent, respectivement ou réciproquement, lorsqu'ils s'engagent dans un débat, participent à assurer le caractère reconnaissable de cette pratique.

Deconstructing Purism: Unconscious Drives and Meta-argumentation in Straight Photography

The thesis investigates the nature of the Purist discourse in photography, with the aim of unveiling its lack of a solid theoretical foundation and its unconscious content. Purism outlines the fact that photography is a unique craft, that may not borrow ideas from painting or any other art forms. What makes the Purist discourse suspect and attracts attention to its possible circular style? The fact that the views expressed by its supporters include a frenzied edge, an unnecessary ardor, a combative tone that discloses that there’s something hidden, something that doesn’t serve the purpose of presenting an unbiased philosophical claim

L'argumentation de Georges Pompidou face à la crise. Une analyse textuelle des allocutions des 11 et 16 mai 1968

Les 11 et 16 mai 1968, le Premier ministre français Georges Pompidou prononce deux allocutions de crise qui ont échappé à la critique. La présente étude propose de rendre compte de leur dynamique argumentative et rhétorique à partir d'une analyse textuelle des discours politiques. Il s'agit de considérer la manière dont l'orateur construit et articule différents énoncés, les ressources qu'il exploite pour s'inscrire dans son discours et donner une place à ses allocutaires ou encore les différents procédés qui lui permettent de construire et de blâmer le tiers perturbateur pour défendre la cohésion nationale. Plus généralement, l'analyse, qui respecte le caractère séquentiel des deux discours et les considère successivement, rend compte des différentes ressources langagières que Pompidou exploite pour schématiser le monde et inviter ses allocutaires au calme. Cette étude s'adresse à toute personne intéressée par l'argumentation, la rhétorique et l'analyse linguistique du discours politique.