Meta-Argumentation Modelling I: Methodology and Techniques

Boella, Guido; Gabbay, Dov M.; Torre, Leendert van der; Villata, Serena

doi:10.1007/s11225-009-9213-2

Cited by 38 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In order to remedy this, they propose an extended argumentation framework (Boella, Gabbay, van der Torre, & Villata, 2009) in which sources are represented explicitly. The argumentation framework they propose can be seen in two ways: the first is with sources, outside of the framework, proposing arguments.…”

Section: Meta-argumentationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Trust and argumentation in multi-agent systems

Koster

2014

Argument & Computation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This survey is the first to review the combination of computational trust and argumentation. The combination of the two approaches seems like a natural match, with the two areas tackling different aspects of reasoning in an uncertain, social environment. We discuss the different areas of research and describe the approaches taken so far, analysing both how they address the problems and the challenges that are unaddressed.

show abstract

Section: Meta-argumentationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Trust and argumentation in multi-agent systems

Koster

2014

Argument & Computation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Meta-argumentationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Boella and colleagues [7,8], in particular, proposed the meta-argumentation methodology where extended argumentation frameworks are instantiated with meta-arguments, and reasoning in the meta-level is allowed without the need to extend Dung-like abstract framework. Meta-argumentation instantiates Dung's theory with meta-arguments, such that Dung's theory is used to reason about itself [8,21]. Meta-argumentation is a particular way to define mappings from argumentation frameworks to extended argumentation frameworks: arguments are interpreted as meta-arguments, of which some are mapped to "argument a is accepted", acc(a), where a is an abstract argument from the extended argumentation framework EAF .…”

Section: Meta-argumentationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…With respect to the work of Bagheri and Ensan [3], which concentrates on the conflict relation, in our approach we take into consideration all the relations required to organize goals, i.e., AND/OR-decomposition, conflict, require and equivalence dependencies. Therefore, we rely on meta-argumentation [7,8] which has been proposed as a general methodology to handle the introduction of new relations among the arguments by reusing Dung's theory and results.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Enhancing Goal-Based Requirements Consistency: An Argumentation-Based Approach

Mirbel

Villata

2012

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Requirements engineering research has for long recognized the leading role of goals as requirement artifacts during the requirements engineering specification processes. Given the large number of artifacts created during the requirements specification and the continuous evolution of these artifacts, reasoning about them remains a challenging task. Moreover, the rising complexity of the target domain under consideration during the requirements engineering process as well as the growth of geographically distributed projects explain why the number of collected requirements as well as their complexity also increase. In this context, providing support to stakeholders in achieving a common understanding of a set of goal-based requirements, in consolidating them and keeping them consistent over time is another challenging task. In this paper, we propose an approach to detect consistent sets of goal-based requirements and maintain their consistency over time. Our approach relies on argumentation theory which allows to detect the conflicts among elements called arguments. In particular, we rely on meta-argumentation, which instantiates abstract argumentation frameworks, where requirements are represented as arguments and the standard Dung-like argumentation framework is extended with additional relations between goal-based requirements.

show abstract

“…The first one, called metaargumentation [17,50], allows us to stay within the well established setting of Dung. However, it comes at the cost of auxiliary arguments which are required to represent relations other than attack.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Generalizations of Dung Frameworks and Their Role in Formal Argumentation

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The aim of this paper is to provide a short survey of some of the most popular abstract argumentation frameworks available today. We present the general idea of abstract argumentation, highlighting the role of abstract frameworks in the argumentation process and review the original Dung frameworks and their semantics. Then a discussion on generalizations of these frameworks is given, focusing on structures taking preferences and values into account and approaches where not only attack but also support relations can be modeled. Finally we review the concept of abstract dialectical frameworks, one of the most general systems for abstract argumentation providing a flexible, principled representation of arbitrary argument relations.

show abstract

Meta-Argumentation Modelling I: Methodology and Techniques

Cited by 38 publications

References 42 publications

Trust and argumentation in multi-agent systems

Trust and argumentation in multi-agent systems

Enhancing Goal-Based Requirements Consistency: An Argumentation-Based Approach

Generalizations of Dung Frameworks and Their Role in Formal Argumentation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About