• Aucun résultat trouvé

Preface

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2022

Partager "Preface"

Copied!
2
0
0

Texte intégral

(1)

Preface

This volume contains the papers presented at AI32019: the 3rd Workshop on Advances In Argumentation In Artificial Intelligence, co-located with 18thInter- national Conference of the Italian Association for Artificial Intelligence (AI∗IA 2019) held in Rende, on the 19thand 20thof November 2019. This workshop is promoted by the Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence Working Group∗∗.

Argumentation is the study of processes and activities involving the produc- tion and exchange of arguments, where arguments are reasons for accepting or refuting a particular conclusion or claim. As such, argumentation provides procedures for making and explaining decisions and is able to capture diverse kinds of reasoning and dialogue activities in a formal but still intuitive way.

Over the last two decades formal argumentation has become a main research topic in Artificial Intelligence. Given that the study of argumentation is inher- ently interdisciplinary, the goal of the workshop was to stimulate discussions and promote scientific collaboration among scholars from different disciplines, including computer science, philosophy, psychology, and computational linguis- tic. At its third edition, this workshop aims to bring together Italian researchers in Italy and abroad, and scholars from around the world to strengthen a group identity and shared interests in the field of argumentation. A wide set of topics were discussed during the workshop, including foundations in argumentation as well as challenges and real-world problems for which argumentation may represent a viable AI-paradigm.

Each submission underwent a single-blind peer-review process and each pa- per was reviewed by at least 3 reviewers. The workshop involved 13 papers accepted for oral presentation, an account of which is given in this volume, and an invited talk. These papers dealt with various aspects of argumentation including novel approaches for computing the acceptability of arguments, prob- abilisitic and dynamic argumentation, argument mining, collection and chal- lenges with natural language argumentation, as well as practical applications and argument representation in real-world contexts.

We would like to express our special thanks to the Program Committee mem- bers, the authors and all the attendees.

November 2019

Chairs Francesco Santini Alice Toniolo

Program Chairs

Francesco Santini (University of Perugia) Alice Toniolo (University of St Andrews)

http://ai3-2019.dmi.unipg.it

∗∗http://sites.google.com/a/aixia.it/argomentazione/

(2)

Steering Committee

Stefano Bistarelli (University of Perugia) Massimiliano Giacomin (University of Brescia)

Program Committee

Gianvincenzo Alfano (Universit`a della Calabria) Pietro Baroni (Universit`a di Brescia)

Stefano Bistarelli (Universit`a di Perugia) Federico Cerutti (Universit`a di Brescia) Marcello D’Agostino (Universit`a di Milano) Pierpaolo Dondio (Dublin Institute of Technology) Bettina Fazzinga (ICAR-CNR Napoli)

Stefano Ferilli (Universit`a di Bari) Sergio Flesca (Universit`a della Calabria) Simone Gabbriellini (CEO Manent.ai)

Massimiliano Giacomin (Universit`a di Brescia) Floriana Grasso (University of Liverpool) Sergio Greco (Universit`a della Calabria)

Marco Lippi (Universit`a degli study di Modena e Reggio Emilia) Luca Longo (Dublin Institute of Technology)

Fabrizio Macagno (Universidade Nova de Lisboa) Marco Maratea (Universit`a di Genova)

Francesco Parisi (Universit`a della Calabria) Carlo Proietti (ILLC, Universiteit van Amsterdam) Francesca Toni (Imperial College, London) Paolo Torroni (Universit`a di Bologna) Mauro Vallati (University of Huddersfield)

Références

Documents relatifs

For the purpose of evaluating arguments in weighted argu- mentation graphs, the paper proposed the first: i) principles that serve as guidelines for defining and comparing seman-

This enables us to define two semantics accounting for two requirements: selecting maximal vs-admissible sets and selecting sets offering a strongest defence for their

By in- troducing two new kinds of equivalence relation between argument graphs, i.e., defense equivalence and root equivalence, we have shown that defense semantics can be used

Un- fortunately, we noted on various examples that, in the general case, these levels were not compatible with those proposed by [Dun95] and refined using the first concept

Moreover, audience specific value-based argumentation frameworks as defined by Bench-Capon may be seen as an equivalent representation as preference-based argumentation frameworks,

In a TAF framework [1], arguments are not revived because attack relations between arguments are only considered when the arguments have overlapping time intervals.. In fact, a TAF

Our methodology is based on the idea that we take the acceptable meta-arguments using some argumentation seman- tics, filter out the atomic arguments like a ∈ by removing

Summarizing, this logic of meta-argumentation allows us to specify and verify complex requirements for extended frameworks, such as extended argumentation frameworks with higher