Dr. Tobias Krauthoff

Dive Deep into Argumentation Theory


Artificial Intelligence

Scope of this Talk

  • Citizens are not happy with decision processes
  • Democratic representatives might not always be sufficient
  • Citizens want to participate actively on decisions
  • Stuttgart 21 $\rightarrow$ Train station at Hamburg Altona

Motivation

  • Online participation processes do not always work
  • Interaction of the participants is a key element
  • Participants are not practiced in (online) reasoning
  • Large number of discussion participants
  • Use of argumentation theory for online participation processes

Argumentation Theory?

  • Interdisciplinary study
    • Use of arguments
    • Logic and rhetoric
  • Origins in epistemology
  • Many kinds of argumentation
https://www.planetminecraft.com/blog/
sexism-in-minecraft--how-to-deal-
with-thembe-one-a-boys-perspective/

Offline Discussions



Online Discussions

Benefits and their Costs

  • Exchange of views
  • Information gain
  • Accessibility
  • Exhibits power
  • Manipulation
  • Initial hurdle
  • Trolling
  • Hate
  • Complexity

State of the Art

AI meets AT



Lists & Threads


Software: phpBB 3.2

Structured Lists & Threads


Software: ConsiderIt

Argumentation Maps


Software: bCivise

Idea

  • Simulate a real world discussion online
  • System is a representative of users that already participated
  • Input of other users are the base of new discussion
  • Conducting a dialog with a current user
  • Combine with argumentation theory

Connect that Idea with AT?

Which kind of argumentation theory?

  • Deductive argumentation
  • Probabilistic reasons
  • Defeasible reasons


Is it usable for unskilled participants?

Let's take it easy

Flow of Argumentation

Dialog-Based Argumentation System


https://dbas.cs.hhu.de & https://github.com/hhucn

Where is the Theory?

  • Display
  • Bootstrap
  • Feedback
  • Navigation
  • Input
  • Practical use of argumentation theory and maps!

Argumentation Theory

Theory Basics

  • Schema like Toulmin
  • Framework of:
    • Dung
    • Aspic+
    • ...

Aspic+

An abstract argumentation framework $(AF)$ is a pair $(A,D)$, where $A$ is a set of $arguments$ and $D \subseteq A \times A$ is a binary relation of $defeat$. We say that $A$ strictly defeats $B$ if $A$ defeats $B$ while $B$ does not defeat $A$. A semantics for $AFs$ returns sets of arguments called $extensions$, which are internally coherent and defend themselves against attacks.

Aspic+ Extensions

Let $\left(A,D\right)$ be an AF. $\forall X \in A, X$ is acceptable with respect to some $S \subseteq A$ iff $\forall Y$ s. t. $(Y,X) \in D \Rightarrow \exists Z \in S$ s. t. $(Z,Y) \in D$.

Let $S \subseteq A$ be conflict free , i.e. there are no $A,B \in S$ such that $(A,B) \in D$. Then:

  • S is an admissible extension iff $X \in S$ implies $X$ is acceptable w. r. t. $S$;
  • S is an complete extension iff $X \in S$ whenever $X$ is acceptable w. r. t. $S$;
  • S is a preferred extension iff it is a set inclusion maximal complete extension;
  • S is the grounded extension iff it is the set inclusion minimal complete extension;
  • S is a stable extension iff it is preferred and $\forall Y \notin S, \exists X \in S$ s. t. $(X,Y) \in D$.


Not usable for unskilled participants!

The Easy Approach


And now?

  • Approach used by D-BAS
  • Embedding structured discussions in any website
  • Using D-BAS as execution platform for social bots
  • Network of argument providers

Any questions?


@joinmetronomnow
tobias.krauthoff@metronom.com
http://tiny.cc/ddat

http://tiny.cc/ddat