July 2013 – Logic Language Law Computing

Lecturer, University of Aberdeen, Department of Computing Science

Since March 15, 2013, I’ve been a lecturer at the University of Aberdeen in the Department of Computing Science.

Paper in ArgMAS 2013 Post-proceedings

I’m co-author of a paper in a post-workshop proceedings of the Ninth International Workshop on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems (ArgMAS 2012) June 4-8, Valencia, Spain.
A Functional Perspective on Argumentation Schemes
Adam Wyner, Katie Atkinson, and Trevor Bench-Capon
Abstract
In multi-agent systems (MAS), abstract argumentation and argumentation schemes are increasingly important. To be useful, schemes require a computational approach so that agents can use the components of a scheme to construct and present arguments and counterarguments. This paper proposes a syntactic analysis that integrates argumentation schemes with abstract argumentation. Schemes can be analysed into the roles that propositions play in each scheme and the structure of the associated propositions, yielding a greater understanding of the schemes, a uniform method of analysis, and a systematic means to relate one scheme to another. This analysis of the schemes helps to clarify what is needed to provide denotations of the terms and predicates in a semantic model.
Bibtex
@INPROCEEDINGS{WynerABCArgMASPost2013,
author = {Adam Wyner and Atkinson, Katie and Trevor Bench-Capon},
title = {A Functional Perspective on Argumentation Schemes},
booktitle = {Post-Proceedings of the 9th International Workshop on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems ({ArgMAS} 2013)},
year = {2013},
editor = {Peter McBurney and Parsons, Simon and Iyad Rahwan},
pages = {??-??}
}
Shortlink to this page.
By Adam Wyner

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Paper in CMNA 2010 Post-proceedings

I’m co-author of a paper in a post-workshop proceedings of the Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument in 2010 and 2011.
Working on the Argument Pipeline: Through Flow Issues between Natural Language Argument, Instantiated Arguments, and Argumentation Frameworks
Adam Wyner, Tom van Engers, and Anthony Hunter
Abstract
In many domains of public discourse such as arguments about public policy, there is an abundance of knowledge to store, query, and reason with. To use this knowledge, we must address two key general problems: first, the problem of the knowledge acquisition bottleneck between forms in which the knowledge is usually expressed, e.g. natural language, and forms which can be automatically processed; second, reasoning with the uncertainties and inconsistencies of the knowledge. Given such complexities, it is labour and knowledge intensive to conduct policy consultations, where participants contribute statements to the policy discourse. Yet, from such a consultation, we want to derive policy positions, where each position is a set of consistent statements, but where positions may be mutually inconsistent. To address these problems and support policy-making consultations, we consider recent automated techniques in natural language processing, instantiating arguments, and reasoning with the arguments in argumentation frameworks. We discuss application and “bridge” issues between these techniques, outlining a pipeline of technologies whereby: expressions in a controlled natural language are parsed and translated into a logic (a literals and rules knowledge base), from which we generate instantiated arguments and their relationships using a logic-based formalism (an argument knowledge base), which is then input to an implemented argumentation framework that calculates extensions of arguments (an argument extensions knowledge base), and finally, we extract consistent sets of expressions (policy positions). The paper reports progress towards reasoning with web-based, distributed, collaborative, incomplete, and inconsistent knowledge bases expressed in natural language.
Bibtex
@INPROCEEDINGS{WynerVanEngersHunterCMNAPOST2013,
author = {Adam Wyner and Tom van Engers and Anthony Hunter},
title = {Working on the Argument Pipeline: Through Flow Issues between Natural
Language Argument, Instantiated Arguments, and Argumentation Frameworks},
booktitle = {Proceedings of the Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument},
year = {2013},
editor = {??},
pages = {??-??},
note = {To appear}
}
Shortlink to this page.
By Adam Wyner

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Paper in CLIMA XIV Special Session on Argumentation

I’m co-author of a paper in the special session on argumentation at The 14th International Workshop on Computational Logic in Multi-Agent Systems, Corunna, Spain, September 16-18, 2013.

This photo of La Coruna courtesy of TripAdvisor
On the Instantiation of Knowledge Bases in Abstract Argumentation Frameworks
Adam Wyner, Trevor Bench-Capon, and Paul Dunne
Abstract
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.
Bibtex
@INPROCEEDINGS{WynerBench-CaponDunne2013,
author = {Adam Wyner and Trevor Bench-Capon and Paul Dunne},
title = {On the Instantiation of Knowledge Bases in Abstract Argumentation Frameworks},
booktitle = {Proceedings of 14th International Workshop on Computational Logic in Multi-Agent Systems},
year = {2013},
publisher = {Springer},
series = {LNCS},
pages = {??-??},
note = {To appear}
}
Presentation slides for “On the Instantiation of Knowledge Bases in Abstract Argumentation Frameworks”
Shortlink to this page.
By Adam Wyner

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Argumentation and Linguistics Tutorial at ACAI 2013

I presented a tutorial on Argumentation and Linguistics at the Advanced Course on Artificial Intelligence (ACAI 2013) held at the Department of Informatics, King’s College London. The course focussed on Argumentation and Artificial Intelligence. From the description:

The ACAI Summer School 2013 (ACAI 2013) will be held at at King’s College London, UK, from the 1st July to the 5th July 2013 and is on the topic of Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence. Computational models of argument, and the development of agreement technologies, is becoming an important area in artificial intelligence. The aim of the summer school is to provide the attendees with a solid grounding in the basic ideas in formal modelling of argumentation, dialogue, and negotiation. Furthermore, there will be a programme of lectures on application areas, lab sessions on software developments, and lectures linking with areas in AI and beyond.

There were about 40 students in attendance. The ACAI course on argumentation covered a good, broad range of topics, presented by my european colleagues. The core of the programme consisted of four main speakers who gave 6 hours of lectures:

Pietro Baroni (Università degli Studi di Brescia) on Abstract Argumentation
Philippe Besnard (Institut de Recherche en Informatique de Toulouse) on Logic-Based Argumentation
Nicolas Maudet (University Pierre et Marie Curie) on Negotiation
Simon Parsons (University of Liverpool) on Dialogue

There were also presentations on applications of argumentation and agreement technologies:

Leila Amgoud (Institut de Recherche en Informatique de Toulouse) on Argumentation in Decision-Making
Katie Atkinson (University of Liverpool) on Argumentation in eGovernment
John Fox (University of Oxford) on Argumentation in Medicine
Nir Oren (University of Aberdeen) on Argumentation in Planning
Henry Prakken (Utrecht University) on Argumentation in Law
Chris Reed (University of Dundee) on Argumentation on the Web
Stefan Woltran (Vienna University of Technology) on Implementation of Argumentation
Adam Wyner (University of Aberdeen) on Argumentation and Linguistics