{"id":832,"date":"2013-06-11T11:03:01","date_gmt":"2013-06-11T11:03:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.arg.tech\/?page_id=832"},"modified":"2021-09-15T13:10:55","modified_gmt":"2021-09-15T13:10:55","slug":"scottish-argumentation-day-2013","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.arg.tech\/index.php\/research\/scottish-argumentation-day-2013\/","title":{"rendered":"Scottish Argumentation Day 2013"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>The 2013 Scottish Argumentation Day will be hosted by ARG:dundee on Friday 19th July. The main aim of the day is to allow researchers in argumentation and related fields from across Scotland to come together and present their work in an informal setting. The day follows on from the successful first meeting held in <a href=\"http:\/\/homepages.abdn.ac.uk\/n.oren\/pages\/sad\/scottish_argumentation_day\/Welcome.html\">Aberdeen in 2011<\/a>.<\/p>\n<h2>Venue<\/h2>\n<p>The venue for the event will be the <strong>Wolfson Research Theatre<\/strong> in the <strong>Queen Mother Building<\/strong> (where the School of Computing is based, building 26 on the <a href=\"http:\/\/www.app.dundee.ac.uk\/campusmap\/campusmap.pdf\">campus map<\/a>).<\/p>\n<p>When you enter the building, go through the double doors on your right and it&#8217;s just past the lift.<\/p>\n<h2>Sponsorship<\/h2>\n<h2><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/www.arg.tech\/~mark\/sicsa.jpg\" alt=\"\"><\/h2>\n<p>We&#8217;re delighted to announce that the day is being sponsored by <a href=\"http:\/\/www.sicsa.ac.uk\">SICSA<\/a> under the <a href=\"http:\/\/www.sicsa.ac.uk\/themes\/multimodal-interaction\">Multimodal Interaction<\/a> theme. They have provided funding for lunches and tea\/coffee breaks.<\/p>\n<h2>Schedule<\/h2>\n<p>The provisional schedule is as follows. Titles and abstracts for the talks will be provided in due course:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>09.30-09.55: Arrival<\/li>\n<li>09.55-10.00: Welcome<\/li>\n<li>10.00-11.20: Session 1\n<ul>\n<li>10.00: Nir Oren<br \/>\n<em>Explaining automated reasoning via argumentation<\/em> (<a href=\"#oren\">Abstract<\/a>)<\/li>\n<li>10.20: Adam Wyner<br \/>\n<em>On the Instantiation of Knowledge Bases in Abstract Argumentation Frameworks<\/em> (<a href=\"#wyner\">Abstract<\/a>)<\/li>\n<li>10.40: Mark Snaith<br \/>\n<em>Argument Revision as a means of supporting dishonesty<\/em> (<a href=\"#snaith\">Abstract<\/a>)<\/li>\n<li>11.00: Martin Caminada<br \/>\n<em>On the Equivalence between Abstract Argumentation and Logic<\/em> (<a href=\"#caminada\">Abstract<\/a>)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li>11.20-11.40: Tea\/coffee break<\/li>\n<li>11.40-12.40: Session 2\n<ul>\n<li>11.40: Katarzyna Budzynska<br \/>\n<em>llocutionary Force as the Link between Argument and Dialogue<\/em> (<a href=\"#budzynska\">Abstract<\/a>)<\/li>\n<li>12.00: Patrick St Dizier<br \/>\n<em>Towards the definition of argumentative dialogue types<\/em> (<a href=\"#stdizier\">Abstract<\/a>)<\/li>\n<li>12.20: John Lawrence<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li>12.40-14.00: Lunch\n<ul>\n<li>With the option of a visit to the ARG:dundee Lab to see a demonstration of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.arg.tech\/?page_id=645\">Argument AnalysisWall<\/a><\/li>\n<li>&nbsp;<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li>14.00-15.20: Session 3\n<ul>\n<li>14.00: Hengfei Li<br \/>\n<em>Probabilistic Argumentation<\/em> (<a href=\"#li\">Abstract<\/a>)<\/li>\n<li>14.20: Rolando Medellin<br \/>\n<em>Interaction with broadcast debates: The Grumpy Old Debate project<\/em> (<a href=\"#medellin\">Abstract<\/a>)<\/li>\n<li>14.40: Federico Cerutti<br \/>\n<em>Argumentation Theory and Description Logic: an Engineering<br \/>\nPerspective<\/em> (<a href=\"#cerutti\">Abstract<\/a>)<\/li>\n<li>15.00: Simon Wells<em><br \/>\nAligning Argumentation Theory with Behaviour Change Mechanisms<\/em> (<a href=\"#wells\">Abstract<\/a>)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li>15.20-15.40: Tea\/coffee break<\/li>\n<li>15.40-16.50: Open discussion on future directions<\/li>\n<li>16.50-17.00: Closing remarks<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2>Abstracts<\/h2>\n<p id=\"oren\"><strong><em>Explaining automated reasoning via argumentation<\/em><\/strong><br \/>\n<a href=\"http:\/\/homepages.abdn.ac.uk\/n.oren\/pages\/Home.html\">Nir Oren<\/a>, University of Aberdeen<\/p>\n<p>In this short talk I will examine the use of argumentation to explain complex concepts to non-expert users. An exemplar of this approach is the EPSRC funded SAsSy project, where we aim to make distributed autonomous systems scrutable tp users through the use of argumentation and natural language generation techniques. More specifically, by engaging in dialogue, we seek to enable the user to understand why some plan was selected by the system, to understand the consequences of the plan, and to be able to modify the plan as needed.<\/p>\n<p id=\"snaith\"><strong><em>Argument Revision as a means of supporting dishonesty<\/em><\/strong><br \/>\n<a href=\"http:\/\/marksnaith.net\">Mark Snaith<\/a>, University of Dundee<\/p>\n<p>This talk will start by showing that dishonesty can be characterised as a form of internal Belief Revision and, by extension, Argument Revision. Then, using the dishonesty typology characterised by Sakama et. al. (2010), it will be demonstrated that applying Argument Revision techniques can assist an agent in being dishonest in a dialogue in a 3-stage process: 1) deciding whether or not to be dishonest; 2) which dishonest act to perform; and 3) supporting the dishonesty to avoid detection.<\/p>\n<p id=\"caminada\"><strong><em>On the Equivalence between Abstract Argumentation and Logic<\/em><\/strong><br \/>\n<a href=\"http:\/\/homepages.abdn.ac.uk\/martin.caminada\/pages\/\">Martin Caminada<\/a>, University of Aberdeen<\/p>\n<p>Abstract argumentation has become a popular approach for nonmonotonic<br \/>\ninference. The basic idea is to construct a form of aggregates, called<br \/>\narguments, and to examine how these attack each other (basically, to<br \/>\nconstruct a directed graph in which the arguments are represented by<br \/>\nvertices and the attack relation is represented by edges). Several<br \/>\ncriteria have been stated (called &#8220;argumentation semantics&#8221;) for<br \/>\nevaluating such a graph, basically to decide which arguments to accept<br \/>\nand which arguments to reject.<br \/>\nLogic Programming is a slightly older approach for nonmonotonic<br \/>\ninference. Here, one starts with a set of rules like &#8220;a &lt;- b, c, not d&#8221;,<br \/>\nstating that if b and c can be derived and d cannot be derived, then a<br \/>\ncan be derived. Again, several criteria have been stated (called &#8220;logic<br \/>\nprogramming semantics&#8221;) for evaluating a logic program, basically to<br \/>\ndecide which atoms to accept and which atoms to reject.<br \/>\nThere turns out to be a striking similarity between these two<br \/>\napproaches. In fact, it is possible to convert a logic program to an<br \/>\nargumentation framework in standard way. Most of the argumentation<br \/>\nsemantics can then be shown to coincide with related logic programming<br \/>\nsemantics. However, there turn out to be two noticeable exceptions,<br \/>\nquestioning whether Abstract Argumentation is indeed a general approach<br \/>\nfor nonmonotonic inference.<\/p>\n<p id=\"wyner\"><strong><em>On the Instantiation of Knowledge Bases in Abstract Argumentation Frameworks<\/em><\/strong><br \/>\n<a href=\"http:\/\/wyner.info\/LanguageLogicLawSoftware\/\">Adam Wyner<\/a>, University of Aberdeen (joint work with Trevor Bench-Capon, and Paul Dunne, University of Liverpool)<\/p>\n<p>Abstract Argumentation Frameworks (AFs) provide a fruitful basis for exploring issues of defeasible reasoning. Their power largely derives from the abstract nature of the arguments within the framework, where arguments are atomic nodes in an undifferentiated relation of attack. This abstraction conceals different conceptions of argument, and concrete instantiations encounter difficulties as a result of conflating these conceptions. We distinguish three distinct senses of the term. We provide an approach to instantiating AFs in which the nodes are restricted to literals and rules, encoding the underlying theory directly. Arguments, in each of the three senses, then emerge from this framework as distinctive structures of nodes and paths. Our framework retains the theoretical and computational benefits of an abstract AF, while keeping notions distinct which are conflated in other approaches to instantiation.<\/p>\n<p id=\"medellin\"><strong><em>Interaction with broadcast debates: The Grumpy Old Debate project<\/em><\/strong><br \/>\nRolando Medellin, University of Dundee<\/p>\n<p>We examine the ways in which software-supported interaction with broadcast debates can be used to reach into social excluded groups of older adults.<br \/>\nFundamental research on human debate and human-centered computing is combined in this project.<br \/>\nThe objective is to understand how older people in particular engage with resources associated with broadcast programmes.<br \/>\nThe results of a study where older adults interact with content of a Moral Maze debate are used to define an argumentation protocol.<br \/>\nIn the first stage we were able to identify specific debating practices and desirable usability requirements from the perspective of older adults.<\/p>\n<p id=\"li\"><strong><em>Probabilistic Argumentation<\/em><\/strong><br \/>\nHengfei Li, University of Aberdeen<\/p>\n<p>In this talk, I will introduce probabilistic argumentation<br \/>\nframeworks(PrAFs), which capture uncertainties in Dung abstract<br \/>\nargumentation framework by assigning probabilities to arguments. The<br \/>\nsemantics for this framework identifies how likely a set of arguments is<br \/>\njustified under some standard semantics. I will speak about one<br \/>\nshortcoming of PrAFs&#8212;the independent assumption&#8212;and its restriction.<br \/>\nI will next introduce an extension to PrAFs&#8212;probabilistic evidential<br \/>\nargumentation frameworks(PrEAFs)&#8212;that allows us to relax the<br \/>\nindependent assumption in PrAFs. I will finish this talk by discussing<br \/>\npotential applications of PrAFs and PrEAFs.<\/p>\n<p id=\"cerutti\"><strong><em>Argumentation Theory and Description Logic: an Engineering<br \/>\nPerspective<\/em><\/strong><br \/>\n<a href=\"http:\/\/homepages.abdn.ac.uk\/f.cerutti\/pages\/\">Federico Cerutti<\/a>, University of Aberdeen<\/p>\n<p>Several logics for defeasible argumentation distinguish between &#8220;strict&#8221;<br \/>\nand &#8220;defeasible&#8221; rules. Generally, a &#8220;strict rule&#8221; is a reasoning<br \/>\npattern that always justifies its conclusion once the premises are<br \/>\nsatisfied. The Aristotelian syllogism is an exemplar of this pattern: if<br \/>\nwe accept that &#8220;Socrates is a man&#8221;, and the &#8220;strict&#8221; rule stating that<br \/>\n&#8220;each man is mortal&#8221;, then the conclusion &#8220;Socrates is mortal&#8221; must be<br \/>\naccepted. However, following the seminal work of Reiter (&#8220;A Logic for<br \/>\nDefault Reasoning&#8221;), it has become common to consider rules that allows<br \/>\nexceptions, or, rules that &#8220;generally&#8221; (instead of &#8220;always&#8221;) lead to the<br \/>\nstated conclusion. This is the case of the well known rule &#8220;generally<br \/>\nbirds fly, unless they are abnormal&#8221; &#8211; penguins are birds, but they<br \/>\ncannot fly.<\/p>\n<p>The introduction of such defeasible rules led to what is commonly called<br \/>\n&#8220;non-monotonic reasoning&#8221;, which aims at overcoming some of the limits<br \/>\nof classical logics. In particular, description logics, a family of<br \/>\nlogics for representing terminological knowledge of a domain, are<br \/>\ngenerally compliant with the axioms of classical logics. Therefore, a<br \/>\npossible way to exploit argumentation techniques in the context of<br \/>\ndescription logics is to map ontological relationships into strict rules<br \/>\n(e.g. the &#8220;ISA&#8221; relationships), and other relations in defeasible rules,<br \/>\nin order to deal with inconsistencies. In this talk we would like to<br \/>\nshare some preliminary ideas on this topic which seem to support the<br \/>\nchoice of using defeasible rules only, instead of mixing them with<br \/>\nstrict ones, thus achieving extensibility, history tracking, and<br \/>\nfault-tolerance.<\/p>\n<p id=\"budzynska\"><strong><em>llocutionary Force as the Link between Argument and Dialogue<\/em><\/strong><br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/sites.google.com\/site\/kbudzynskaen\/\">Katarzyna Budzynska<\/a> and <a href=\"http:\/\/www.computing.dundee.ac.uk\/staff\/creed\/index.html\">Chris Reed<\/a>, University of Dundee<\/p>\n<p>The connection between formal theories of argument and inference on the one hand, and dialogical processes of debate and disagreement on the other is surprisingly understudied. Inference Anchoring Theory (IAT, Budzynska &amp; Reed 2011) provides, for the first time, a well-grounded account of this connection using the theory of speech acts (Searle 1969, 1975). IAT tackles a number of challenging theoretical issues, including argument that uses the statements of others, argument that involves ethos and argument that is established purely in virtue of its dialogical context. IAT is also sufficiently robust to take on the linguistic analysis of natural arguments in unconstrained domains, such as discussion boards on internet fora and moral debates on radio. Finally, IAT is also the lynchpin in extensions to the argument interchange format, a computational standard for the representation of argument by machines, and those extensions are now supporting a raft of innovative, exciting software applications.<\/p>\n<p id=\"stdizier\"><strong><em>Towards the definition of argumentative dialogue types<\/em><\/strong><br \/>\nMathilde Janier and <a href=\"http:\/\/www.irit.fr\/~Patrick.Saint-Dizier\/\">Patrick Saint-Dizier<\/a>, IRIT, France<\/p>\n<p>Following the IAT theory elaborated by C. Reed and K. Budzynska,<br \/>\nand in conjunction with these authors, we present an analysis of argumentative<br \/>\ndialogue categories based on a notion of types.<\/p>\n<p>First, basic types are considered and polymorphic types are<br \/>\nintroduced to handle the numerous ambiguity problems between categories<br \/>\nbetween which there is a form of continuum.<\/p>\n<p>Second, given a statement such as &#8216;Do you believe that P ?&#8217; we show that,<br \/>\nassuming that P is of type assertion (noted as A), it is first modified by a<br \/>\nmodal (believe). It still remains of type A: leading to the coupound type: bel(A).<br \/>\nThen, this type may<br \/>\nbe coerced into a question (type Q) via the string &#8216;Do you&#8217;, leading to the<br \/>\ncompond type Q(bel(A)).<br \/>\nWe view these operators as functions operating over types.<\/p>\n<p>If time permits, some linguistic element will be developed to show<br \/>\nhow the various elements are realized in language.<\/p>\n<p id=\"wells\"><strong><em>Aligning Argumentation Theory with Behaviour Change Mechanisms<\/em><\/strong><br \/>\n<a href=\"http:\/\/www.simonwells.org\/\">Simon Wells<\/a>, University of Aberdeen<\/p>\n<p>In this short talk I report on preliminary work that aims to effect real change in the context of difficult societal problems. Many such problems stem from the cumulative effects of the individual behaviours of large numbers of people. Digital behaviour change mechanisms are used to support people in forming new habitual behaviours and build on rich psychological models of behaviour dynamics. Argumentation theory has rich models of both argumentation and interaction as well as extensive collections of stereotypical patterns of real-world argumentation. In this work we begin to align elements of pyschological models of behaviour change with models of argumentative interaction. The aim is to increase the motivation of bahaviour change targets, enabling them to make informed and justifiable decisions about their behaviours and to increase the overall effectiveness of behaviour change mechanisms.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The 2013 Scottish Argumentation Day will be hosted by ARG:dundee on Friday 19th July. The main aim of the day is to allow researchers in argumentation and related fields from across Scotland to come together and present their work in an informal setting. The day follows on from the successful first meeting held in Aberdeen [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"parent":96,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-832","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.arg.tech\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/832","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.arg.tech\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.arg.tech\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arg.tech\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arg.tech\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=832"}],"version-history":[{"count":68,"href":"https:\/\/www.arg.tech\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/832\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2471,"href":"https:\/\/www.arg.tech\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/832\/revisions\/2471"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arg.tech\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/96"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.arg.tech\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=832"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}