• Co-Supervisor :
  • Élise Bonzon
  • Funding : ANR
  • PhD defended on :
  • 2017-12-12
  • faculté des sciences

An important application of argumentation with great potential impact is related to debate systems that are emerging on the web (see for instance DebateBase, DebateGraph or Argüman). The success of these platforms in their current form seems to suggest that they can become an important source of information, just as wikipedia is now. For instance, DebateGraph was used to produce maps for the British newspaper “The Independent” and talk shows on CNN, and is supported by the White House, the European Commission, and other institutions. These debate systems are still in their infancy though. For the moment they are mainly interfaces where people can give arguments pro or con a given issue without any particular processing and evaluation of those arguments. The goal of this thesis is to provide automatic reasoning/decision capabilities to these platforms.

In particular we will study ranking-based semantics, that seem more adequate for these platforms than usual extension-based ones. We will look at the logical properties of these semantics and propose new ones. We will also study how to accommodate weights on arguments and/or attacks on these frameworks. And finally we will look at the strategical aspects of such settings.

Bibliography

  • J. Leite and J. Martins, Social abstract argumentation, (IJCAI’11), 2011
  • Phan Minh Dung. On the acceptability of ar- guments and its fundamental role innonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence, 77(2):321–358, 1995.
  • L. Amgoud and J. Ben-Naim, Ranking-based semantics for argumentation frameworks(SUM’13), 2013
  • C. Cayrol and M.-Ch. Lagasquie-Schiex, Graduality in argumentation, Journal of ArtificialIntelligence Research, 2005
  • P. Matt and F. Toni, A game-theoretic measure of argument strength for abstract