HomePage
Main.HomePage History
Hide minor edits - Show changes to markup
Our final workshop was co-located with Argument Strength, see details [http://helios.mi.parisdescartes.fr/~jmailly/AMANDE-ArgStrength-2018/|here].
Our final workshop was co-located with Argument Strength, see details here.
Our final workshop was co-located with Argument Strength, see details [http://helios.mi.parisdescartes.fr/~jmailly/AMANDE-ArgStrength-2018/|here].
Admins facts.
AMANDE in a nut almond shell.
AMANDE in a nut almond shell
The AMANDE (Advanced Multilateral Argumentation for DEliberation) project aims at providing formal tools for designing multiparty deliberation systems. The main objective is to define and study the properties of such systems, so that designers can ensure that users and possibly interacting agents are able to identify key arguments in a deliberation process, and to fairly defend their view. While the technological tools are now available to deploy such systems, we believe there is now an urgent need to work on the theoretical foundations of such platforms.
Our main ambition with this project is to provide the theoretical foundations allowing a designer to:
- Support multiparty deliberation, allowing for instance to fairly regulate a debate and avoid manipulation, to assess the status of a given claim, or to emphasize the critical claims put forward so far.
- Analyse multiparty deliberation, allowing for instance to identify key arguments, the most influential contributors, or the possible coalitions.
- Enable artificial agents to effectively take part in such deliberations, which raises in addition questions pertaining to the adequate definitions of strategies for such agents.
Theoretical foundations for the analysis and design of deliberating systems based on argumentation
Objective : Theoretical foundations for the aggregation of arguments coming from multiple sources
Debating and exchanging arguments is a fundamental human activity, studied for a long time. But considering that it is already difficult to evaluate which of two debaters was the most convincing, how can we handle debates where participants can be counted in dozens, even more? Online deliberation platforms makes this prospect real: on such platforms, pieces of information (more or less credible) are exchanged in order to build up a "collective opinion". These pieces of information can be arguments, but people may also vote on arguments put forward by other parties. How can we make sense of this constellation of viewpoints? Is there any well-founded method to aggregate them, to analyze the resulting debates (for instance, so as to single out the best justified ones?). And in a normative perspective, can we conceive and design systems enjoying good properties (that the debate evolved correctly, that the viewpoints were fairly represented, that the outcome reached was satisfying for all the parties, etc.)
Methodology : Abstract argumentation frameworks.
Argumentation is a complex process, involving a number of factors (in particular, the actual linguistic form that arguments take, or the psychological aspects involved in the interaction). The approach taken in this project is to abstract away from these aspects to study instead the structure of debates (how arguments relate to each others): we use the expression 'abstract argumentation frameworks' to express this. This is for sure a strong assumption, but this structural analysis proves to be very rich, and potentially complementary from other approaches focused on the content of arguments. By using logical approaches, graph theory, or even game and social choice theory, we have access to several methods allowing to analyze debates, but also to help to design better debating platforms. Indeed, results can be either descriptive (analyzing existing debates which occurred), but also normative, thus providing guidelines allowing to build platforms with better properties.
Main results.
In the context of this project, we have developed new approaches for the aggregation of arguments and judgments, based on notions of votes' support, and clarified the connection with belief merging. In particular, we have contributed to new methods allowing to rank the arguments of a debate. We have proposed new operators to model the dynamics of argumentation systems, together with their logical encoding. We have also studied the algorithmic aspects of these questions, contributing in particular to the CoQuiaas solver, which won the first place at the International Competition on Computational Models of Arguments.
Scientific output.
The members of the project have published more than 50 international papers, including 10+ in international journals, and a best paper prize at the International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS-16). These results have been widely made available to the community through dedicated workshops and courses in Summer schools. Two software contributions resulted from the project: the CoQuiaas solver (which arguments are acceptable?), and the SESAME platform to specify argumentation semantics (how to define this notion of acceptability?).
Admins facts.
The AMANDE is a basic research project, coordinated by Nicolas Maudet, Sébastien Konieczny and Elise Bonzon, involving several labs: LIP6 (Sorbonne Université), CRIL (Université d'Artois), de IRIT (Université de Toulouse), LAMSADE (Université Paris-Dauphine), with members LIPADE (Université Paris-Descartes) participating as well. The project started in December 2013, for 48 months, and was extended to 58 months. It benefited from the support of ANR (320K euros), as well as from the additional support (32K euros) of FRAE (Fondation de Recherche pour l'Aéronautique et l'Espace).
Le projet a donné lieu à la publication de plus de 50 articles internationaux, dont plus de 10 articles en revues internationales à comité de lecture, et un prix du meilleur article à la conférence internationale AAMAS-16. Ces résultats ont largement été diffusés (ateliers, cours dans des écoles d'été). Deux contributions logicielles s'ajoutent à ces résultats: le solveur CoQuiAAS (quels arguments sont acceptables?), et la plateforme de spécification de sémantiques SESAME (comment définir ce qui est acceptable?).
Le projet a donné lieu à la publication de plus de 50 articles internationaux, dont plus de 10 articles en revues internationales à comité de lecture, et un prix du meilleur article à la conférence internationale AAMAS-16. Ces résultats ont largement été diffusés (ateliers, cours dans des écoles d'été). Deux contributions logicielles s'ajoutent à ces résultats: le solveur CoQuiaas (quels arguments sont acceptables?), et la plateforme de spécification de sémantiques SESAME (comment définir ce qui est acceptable?).
Recent News
- AMANDE paper wins best paper prize at AAMAS-2016!, see here
- CoQuiAas wins first place at the First International Competition on Computational Models of Argumentation!
- The CoQuiAAS tool is available for download. Checkout the dedicated webpage: http://www.cril.univ-artois.fr/coquiaas/
Le projet a donné lieu à la publication de plus de 50 articles internationaux, dont plus de 10 articles en revues internationales à comité de lecture, et un prix du meilleur article à la conférence internationale AAMAS-16. Ces résultats ont largement été diffusés (ateliers, cours dans des écoles d'été). Deux contributions logicielles s'ajoutent à ces résultats: le solveur CoQuiAAS (quels arguments sont acceptables?), et la plateforme de spécification de sémantiques SESAME (comment définir ce qui est acceptable?).
Le projet a donné lieu à la publication de plus de 50 articles internationaux, dont plus de 10 articles en revues internationales à comité de lecture, et un prix du meilleur article à la conférence internationale AAMAS-16. Ces résultats ont largement été diffusés (ateliers, cours dans des écoles d'été). Deux contributions logicielles s'ajoutent à ces résultats: le solveur CoQuiAAS (quels arguments sont acceptables?), et la plateforme de spécification de sémantiques SESAME (comment définir ce qui est acceptable?).
The AMANDE project is finished since 30/09/2018.
The AMANDE project (ANR-13-BS02-004) is finished since 30/09/2018.
Dans le cadre de ce projet, nous avons développé de nouvelles approches pour l’agrégation d'arguments et de jugements, basées sur des notions de support de votes et éclairci le lien avec la fusion de croyances. En particulier, nous avons largement contribué à de nouvelles méthodes permettant de classer les arguments d'un débat. Nous avons proposé de nouveaux opérateurs pour modéliser la dynamique des systèmes d'argumentation, avec leur codage logique. Nous avons enfin travaillé sur les aspects algorithmiques de ces problèmes, contribuant en particulier au solveur CoQuiAAS, évalué comme le meilleur solveur lors de la compétition internationale.
Dans le cadre de ce projet, nous avons développé de nouvelles approches pour l’agrégation d'arguments et de jugements, basées sur des notions de support de votes et éclairci le lien avec la fusion de croyances. En particulier, nous avons largement contribué à de nouvelles méthodes permettant de classer les arguments d'un débat. Nous avons proposé de nouveaux opérateurs pour modéliser la dynamique des systèmes d'argumentation, avec leur codage logique. Nous avons enfin travaillé sur les aspects algorithmiques de ces problèmes, contribuant en particulier au solveur CoQuiAAS, évalué comme le meilleur solveur lors de la compétition internationale ICCMA.
Le projet AMANDE est un projet de recherche fondamentale, coordonné par Nicolas Maudet, Sébastien Konieczny et Elise Bonzon, impliquant les laboratoires du LIP6 (Sorbonne Université), du CRIL (Université d'Artois), de l'IRIT (Université de Toulouse), du LAMSADE (Université Paris-Dauphine), avec la participation de collègues du LIPADE (Université Paris-Descartes). Le projet a débuté en Décembre 2013 pour une durée de 48 mois, prolongée à 58 mois. Il a bénéficié d'une aide de l'ANR de 320K euros, ainsi que d'un soutien financier complémentaire de la FRAE (Fondation de Recherche pour l'Aéronautique et l'Espace) de 32K euros.
The project is supported by the French National Research Agency (ANR) as ANR-13-BS02-004. The project is also supported by the "Fondation de Recherche pour l'Aéronautique et l'Espace" (FRAE).
Le projet AMANDE est un projet de recherche fondamentale, coordonné par Nicolas Maudet, Sébastien Konieczny et Elise Bonzon, impliquant les laboratoires du LIP6 (Sorbonne Université), du CRIL (Université d'Artois), de l'IRIT (Université de Toulouse), du LAMSADE (Université Paris-Dauphine), avec la participation de collègues du LIPADE (Université Paris-Descartes). Le projet a débuté en Décembre 2013 pour une durée de 48 mois, prolongée à 58 mois. Il a bénéficié d'une aide de l'ANR de 320K euros, ainsi que d'un soutien financier complémentaire de la FRAE (Fondation de Recherche pour l'Aéronautique et l'Espace, FRAE) de 32K euros.
The AMANDE project is finished since 30/09/2018. (french version first, english version below).
The AMANDE project is finished since 30/09/2018. You can find below the summary of this collective research effort (french version first, english version below).
Des modèles formels d'argumentation abstraite.
L'argumentation est un processus complexe qui met évidemment en jeu une multitude de facteurs (en particulier langagiers, et psychologiques). Le parti pris de ce projet a été d'étudier essentiellement la structure des débats (comment les arguments sont liés les uns aux autres), en faisant abstraction du contenu interne des arguments: on parle donc de modèles d'argumentation abstraite. C'est une hypothèse forte, mais cette analyse structurelle s'avère d'une grande richesse, et potentiellement complémentaire d'autres approches centrées sur le contenu des arguments. Par l'emploi d'approches logiques, de la théorie des graphes, de la théorie des jeux ou du choix social, il est possible d'analyser les débats, mais aussi d'aider à la conception de plateformes. Les résultats attendus peuvent en effet être descriptifs (outils permettant de faciliter l'analyse de débats, de faire ressortir les points de vue les plus solidement argumentés), mais également normatifs, puisqu'ils doivent permettre de produire des systèmes qui garantissent de meilleures propriétés (déroulement correct du débat, représentation équitable des différents points de vue, solution satisfaisante atteinte, etc.)
Des modèles formels abstraits d'argumentation.
L'argumentation est un processus complexe qui met évidemment en jeu une multitude de facteurs (en particulier langagiers, et psychologiques). Le parti pris de ce projet a été d'étudier essentiellement la structure des débats (comment les arguments sont liés les uns aux autres), en faisant abstraction du contenu interne des arguments: on parle donc de modèles abstraits d'argumentation. C'est une hypothèse forte, mais cette analyse structurelle s'avère d'une grande richesse, et potentiellement complémentaire d'autres approches centrées sur le contenu des arguments. Par l'emploi d'approches logiques, de la théorie des graphes, de la théorie des jeux ou du choix social, il est possible d'analyser les débats, mais aussi d'aider à la conception de plateformes. Les résultats attendus peuvent en effet être descriptifs (outils permettant de faciliter l'analyse de débats, de faire ressortir les points de vue les plus solidement argumentés), mais également normatifs, puisqu'ils doivent permettre de produire des systèmes qui garantissent de meilleures propriétés (déroulement correct du débat, représentation équitable des différents points de vue, solution satisfaisante atteinte, etc.)
The AMANDE project is finished since 30/09/2018.
The AMANDE project is finished since 30/09/2018. (french version first, english version below).
Fondements théoriques pour l'analyse et la conception de systèmes de délibération basés sur l'argumentation
Etudier les fondements théoriques de l’agrégation d’arguments provenant de plusieurs sources.
Fondements théoriques pour l'analyse et la conception de systèmes de délibération basés sur l'argumentation
Etudier les fondements théoriques de l’agrégation d’arguments provenant de plusieurs sources.
Des modèles formels d'argumentation abstraite.
Des modèles formels d'argumentation abstraite.
Résultats majeurs.
Résultats majeurs.
Production scientifique.
Production scientifique.
Informations factuelles.
Le projet AMANDE est un projet de recherche fondamentale, coordonné par Nicolas Maudet, Sébastien Konieczny et Elise Bonzon, impliquant les laboratoires du LIP6 (Sorbonne Université), du CRIL (Université d'Artois), de l'IRIT (Université de Toulouse), du LAMSADE (Université Paris-Dauphine), avec la participation de collègues du LIPADE (Université Paris-Descartes). Le projet a débuté en Décembre 2013 pour une durée de 48 mois, prolongée d'un an. Il a bénéficié d'une aide de l'ANR de 320K euros, ainsi que d'un soutien financier complémentaire de la FRAE (Fondation de Recherche pour l'Aéronautique et l'Espace) de 32K euros.
Informations factuelles.
Le projet AMANDE est un projet de recherche fondamentale, coordonné par Nicolas Maudet, Sébastien Konieczny et Elise Bonzon, impliquant les laboratoires du LIP6 (Sorbonne Université), du CRIL (Université d'Artois), de l'IRIT (Université de Toulouse), du LAMSADE (Université Paris-Dauphine), avec la participation de collègues du LIPADE (Université Paris-Descartes). Le projet a débuté en Décembre 2013 pour une durée de 48 mois, prolongée à 58 mois. Il a bénéficié d'une aide de l'ANR de 320K euros, ainsi que d'un soutien financier complémentaire de la FRAE (Fondation de Recherche pour l'Aéronautique et l'Espace) de 32K euros.
Fondements théoriques pour l'analyse et la conception de systèmes de délibération basés sur l'argumentation
Etudier les fondements théoriques de l’agrégation d’arguments provenant de plusieurs sources.
The AMANDE project is finished since 30/09/2018.
Fondements théoriques pour l'analyse et la conception de systèmes de délibération basés sur l'argumentation
Etudier les fondements théoriques de l’agrégation d’arguments provenant de plusieurs sources.
Méthodes et technos utilisées: Des modèles formels d'argumentation abstraite.
Des modèles formels d'argumentation abstraite.
Résultats majeurs.
Résultats majeurs.
Production scientifique.
Production scientifique.
Informations factuelles.
Informations factuelles.
Fondements théoriques pour l'analyse et la conception de systèmes de délibération basés sur l'argumentation
Etudier les fondements théoriques de l’agrégation d’arguments provenant de plusieurs sources.
Débattre et échanger des arguments est une activité humaine fondamentale, étudiée de longue date. Mais s'il est parfois difficile de savoir qui de deux participant-e-s fut le ou la plus convaincante, imaginez la situation lorsque les intervenant-e-s se comptent par dizaine, voire plus. L'avènement de plateformes de délibération permet d'organiser de tels débats à large échelle. Sur ces plateformes de débats en ligne, divers éléments d'information -positifs ou négatifs, plus ou moins crédibles-, sont avancés pour tenter d'établir une « opinion collective ». Ces éléments peuvent être des arguments, mais également des votes sur les arguments proposés par d'autres. Comment faire sens de cette multitude de points de vue? Existe-t-il de bonnes méthodes pour agréger les échanges de ces débats, en permettre l’analyse pour, par exemple, faire ressortir les points de vue les plus solidement argumentés? Et dans une perspective normative, peut-on envisager de concevoir des systèmes dotés de bonnes propriétés (déroulement correct du débat, représentation équitable des différents points de vue, solution satisfaisante pour toutes les parties atteinte, etc.)
Méthodes et technos utilisées: Des modèles formels d'argumentation abstraite. L'argumentation est un processus complexe qui met évidemment en jeu une multitude de facteurs (en particulier langagiers, et psychologiques). Le parti pris de ce projet a été d'étudier essentiellement la structure des débats (comment les arguments sont liés les uns aux autres), en faisant abstraction du contenu interne des arguments: on parle donc de modèles d'argumentation abstraite. C'est une hypothèse forte, mais cette analyse structurelle s'avère d'une grande richesse, et potentiellement complémentaire d'autres approches centrées sur le contenu des arguments. Par l'emploi d'approches logiques, de la théorie des graphes, de la théorie des jeux ou du choix social, il est possible d'analyser les débats, mais aussi d'aider à la conception de plateformes. Les résultats attendus peuvent en effet être descriptifs (outils permettant de faciliter l'analyse de débats, de faire ressortir les points de vue les plus solidement argumentés), mais également normatifs, puisqu'ils doivent permettre de produire des systèmes qui garantissent de meilleures propriétés (déroulement correct du débat, représentation équitable des différents points de vue, solution satisfaisante atteinte, etc.)
Résultats majeurs. Dans le cadre de ce projet, nous avons développé de nouvelles approches pour l’agrégation d'arguments et de jugements, basées sur des notions de support de votes et éclairci le lien avec la fusion de croyances. En particulier, nous avons largement contribué à de nouvelles méthodes permettant de classer les arguments d'un débat. Nous avons proposé de nouveaux opérateurs pour modéliser la dynamique des systèmes d'argumentation, avec leur codage logique. Nous avons enfin travaillé sur les aspects algorithmiques de ces problèmes, contribuant en particulier au solveur CoQuiAAS, évalué comme le meilleur solveur lors de la compétition internationale.
Production scientifique. Le projet a donné lieu à la publication de plus de 50 articles internationaux, dont plus de 10 articles en revues internationales à comité de lecture, et un prix du meilleur article à la conférence internationale AAMAS-16. Ces résultats ont largement été diffusés (ateliers, cours dans des écoles d'été). Deux contributions logicielles s'ajoutent à ces résultats: le solveur CoQuiAAS (quels arguments sont acceptables?), et la plateforme de spécification de sémantiques SESAME (comment définir ce qui est acceptable?).
Informations factuelles. Le projet AMANDE est un projet de recherche fondamentale, coordonné par Nicolas Maudet, Sébastien Konieczny et Elise Bonzon, impliquant les laboratoires du LIP6 (Sorbonne Université), du CRIL (Université d'Artois), de l'IRIT (Université de Toulouse), du LAMSADE (Université Paris-Dauphine), avec la participation de collègues du LIPADE (Université Paris-Descartes). Le projet a débuté en Décembre 2013 pour une durée de 48 mois, prolongée d'un an. Il a bénéficié d'une aide de l'ANR de 320K euros, ainsi que d'un soutien financier complémentaire de la FRAE (Fondation de Recherche pour l'Aéronautique et l'Espace) de 32K euros.
- 10th Meeting: Will take place at Univ. Paris-Descartes, France (9-11 October 2017). On the 11th of October, we shall have a joint session with the ANR project ETHICAA.
- Diffusion of our research: Sylvie Doutre and Jean-Guy Mailly will give a joint lecture at the 19th European Agent Systems Summer School (EASSS 2017), on the topic Constraints and Changes in Argumentation: State of the Art and Challenges of Argumentation Dynamics.
- 9th Meeting: Will take place at Univ. Paris-Descartes, France (9-11 October 2017). On the 11th of October, we shall have a joint session with the ANR project ETHICAA.
- 10th Meeting: Will take place at Univ. Paris-Descartes, France (9-11 October 2017). On the 11th of October, we shall have a joint session with the ANR project ETHICAA.
- 9th Meeting: Co-located with the Workshop on Decision Making in Toulouse, France (25 April 2017).
- 9th Meeting: Will take place at Univ. Paris-Descartes, France (9-11 October 2017). On the 11th of October, we shall have a joint session with the ANR project ETHICAA.
- 8th Meeting: Meeting co-located with the Workshop on Argument Strength, in Bochum, Germany (1st-2nd of December 2016).
- 7th Meeting: extra Fall meeting took place in Montpellier (13-14 October 2016).
- The CoQuiAas tool is available for download. Checkout the dedicated webpage: http://www.cril.univ-artois.fr/coquiaas/
- The CoQuiAAS tool is available for download. Checkout the dedicated webpage: http://www.cril.univ-artois.fr/coquiaas/
- Diffusion of our research: Sylvie Doutre and Jean-Guy Mailly will give a joint lecture at the 19th European Agent Systems Summer School (EASSS 2017), on the topic Constraints and Changes in Argumentation: State of the Art and Challenges of Argumentation Dynamics.
- 8th Meeting: Meeting co-located with the Workshop on Argument Strength, in Bochum, Germany (1st-2nd of December).
- 8th Meeting: Meeting co-located with the Workshop on Argument Strength, in Bochum, Germany (1st-2nd of December 2016).
- 9th Meeting: Co-located with the Workshop on Decision Making in Toulouse, France (25 April 2017).
- 9th Meeting: Co-located with the Workshop on Decision Making in Toulouse, France (25 April 2017).
- 9th Meeting: Co-located with the Workshop on Decision Making in Toulouse, France (25th April 2017).
- 9th Meeting: Co-located with the Workshop on Decision Making in Toulouse, France (25 April 2017).
- 9th Meeting: Meeting co-located with the Workshop on Decision Making in Toulouse, France (25th April 2017).
- 9th Meeting: Co-located with the Workshop on Decision Making in Toulouse, France (25th April 2017).
- 9th Meeting: Meeting co-located with the Workshop on Decision Making in Toulouse, France (25th April 2017).
- 8th Meeting: Our next project meeting will be co-located with the Workshop on Argument Strength, to take place in Bochum, Germany (1st-2nd of December).
- 7th Meeting: extra Fall meeting to take place in Montpellier (13-14 October 2016).
- 8th Meeting: Meeting co-located with the Workshop on Argument Strength, in Bochum, Germany (1st-2nd of December).
- 7th Meeting: extra Fall meeting took place in Montpellier (13-14 October 2016).
- 7th Meeting: extra Fall meeting to take place in Montpellier (13-14 October 2016). More information coming soon.
- 7th Meeting: extra Fall meeting to take place in Montpellier (13-14 October 2016).
- 8th Meeting: Our next project will be co-located with the Workshop on Argument Strength, to take place in Bochum, Germany (1st-2nd of December).
- 8th Meeting: Our next project meeting will be co-located with the Workshop on Argument Strength, to take place in Bochum, Germany (1st-2nd of December).
- AMANDE paper wins best paper prize at AAMAS-2016!, see here
- CoQuiAas wins first place at the First International Competition on Computational Models of Argumentation!
- AMANDE paper wins best paper prize at AAMAS-2016!, see here
- CoQuiAas wins first place at the First International Competition on Computational Models of Argumentation!
- 7th Meeting: extra Fall meeting to take place in Montpellier in October 2016. More information soon.
- 7th Meeting: extra Fall meeting to take place in Montpellier (13-14 October 2016). More information coming soon.
- AMANDE paper wins best paper prize at AAMAS-2016!, see here
- AMANDE paper wins best paper prize at AAMAS-2016!, see here
- AMANDE paper wins best paper prize at AAMAS-2016!
http:http://sis.smu.edu.sg/aamas2016?itemid=671
- AMANDE paper wins best paper prize at AAMAS-2016!, see here
JIAF-2016.
- 8th Meeting: Our next project will be co-located with the Workshop on Argument Strength, to take place in Bochum, Germany (1st-2nd of December).
- 6th Meeting: this meeting took place in Montpellier in June 2016. It was co-located with JIAF-2016.
- 5th Meeting: this meeting took place in Toulouse in January 2016.
- The workshop on Change in Argumentation http://www.cril.univ-artois.fr/changearg/, co-located with the PhD defense of Jean-Guy Mailly (29--30/09/2015)
JIAF-2016.
- 7th Meeting: extra Fall meeting to take place in Montpellier in October 2016. More information soon.
- AMANDE paper wins best paper prize at AAMAS-2016!
http:http://sis.smu.edu.sg/aamas2016?itemid=671
- 6th Meeting: our next meeting is going to take place in Montpellier, from 14 to 17 June 2016, co-located with JIAF-2016. More information coming soon.
- 6th Meeting: this meeting took place in Montpellier in June 2016. It was co-located with JIAF-2016.
- The CoQuiAas tool is now available for download! Checkout the dedicated webpage: http://www.cril.univ-artois.fr/coquiaas/
- The CoQuiAas tool is available for download. Checkout the dedicated webpage: http://www.cril.univ-artois.fr/coquiaas/
- 6th Meeting: our next meeting is going to take place in Montpellier, from 14 to 17 June 2016, co-located with JIAF-2016. More information coming soon.
- 6th Meeting: our next meeting is going to take place in Montpellier, from 14 to 17 June 2016, co-located with JIAF-2016. More information coming soon.
- 6th Meeting: our next meeting is going to take place in Montpellier, from 14 to 17 June 2016, co-located with JIAF-2016.
More information coming soon.
- 6th Meeting: our next meeting is going to take place in Montpellier, from 14 to 17 June 2016, co-located with JIAF-2016. More information coming soon.
6th Meeting: our next meeting is going to take place in Montpellier, from 14 to 17 June 2016, co-located with JIAF-2016.
- 6th Meeting: our next meeting is going to take place in Montpellier, from 14 to 17 June 2016, co-located with JIAF-2016.
6th Meeting: our next meeting is going to take place in Montpellier, from 14 to 17 June 2016, co-located with JIAF-2016. More information coming soon.
- 5th Meeting: Our next meeting (January 2016) is going to take place in Toulouse.
- 5th Meeting: this meeting took place in Toulouse in January 2016.
- 5th Meeting: Our next meeting (January 2016) is going to take place in Toulouse.
- 5th Meeting: Our next meeting (January 2016) is going to take place in Toulouse.
- The CoQuiAas tool is now available for download! Checkout the dedicated webpage: http://www.cril.univ-artois.fr/coquiaas/
- The CoQuiAas tool is now available for download! Checkout the dedicated webpage: http://www.cril.univ-artois.fr/coquiaas/
- 5th Meeting: Our next meeting (January 2016) is going to take place in Toulouse.
- 5th Meeting: Our next meeting (January 2016) is going to take place in Toulouse.
- 5th Meeting Our next meeting (January 2016) is going to take place in Toulouse.
- The CoQuiAas tool is now available for dowload! Checkout the dedicated webpage: http://www.cril.univ-artois.fr/coquiaas/
- 5th Meeting: Our next meeting (January 2016) is going to take place in Toulouse.
- The CoQuiAas tool is now available for download! Checkout the dedicated webpage: http://www.cril.univ-artois.fr/coquiaas/
- CoQuiAas wins first place at the First International Competition on Computational Models ofArgumentation!
- CoQuiAas wins first place at the First International Competition on Computational Models of Argumentation!
- CoQuiAas wins first place at the First International Competition on Computational Argumentation! Details coming soon.
- 5th Meeting Our next meeting (January 2016) is going to take place in Toulouse. Information coming soon!
- the CoQuiAas tool is now available for dowload! Checkout the dedicated webpage: http://www.cril.univ-artois.fr/coquiaas/
- CoQuiAas wins first place at the First International Competition on Computational Models ofArgumentation!
- 5th Meeting Our next meeting (January 2016) is going to take place in Toulouse.
- The CoQuiAas tool is now available for dowload! Checkout the dedicated webpage: http://www.cril.univ-artois.fr/coquiaas/
- 5th Meeting Our next meeting (winter 2015) is going to take place in Toulouse. Information coming soon!
- 5th Meeting Our next meeting (January 2016) is going to take place in Toulouse. Information coming soon!
- The workshop on Change in Argumentation http://www.cril.univ-artois.fr/changearg/, co-located with the PhD defense of Jean-Guy Mailly (29--30/09/2015)
- CoQuiAas wins first place at the First International Competition on Computational Argumentation! Details coming soon.
- 4th Meeting (15-17 June 2015): Université Paris-Dauphine. Information coming soon!
- 5th Meeting Our next meeting (winter 2015) is going to take place in Toulouse. Information coming soon!
- 4rd Meeting (15-17 June 2015): Université Paris-Dauphine. Information coming soon!
- 4th Meeting (15-17 June 2015): Université Paris-Dauphine. Information coming soon!
- 4rd Meeting (15-17 June 2015): Université Paris-Dauphine
- 4rd Meeting (15-17 June 2015): Université Paris-Dauphine. Information coming soon!
- the CoQuiAas tool is now available for dowload! Checkout the dedicated webpage: http://www.cril.univ-artois.fr/coquiaas/
- 3rd Meeting (14-16 January 2015): CNRS, Délégation Nord-Pas-de-Calais-Picardie, Lille
- 2nd Meeting (30 June - 2 July 2014): ILLC, Univ. Amsterdam, co-located with the workshop "Arguing on the Web 2.0"
- Kick-Off Meeting (16-17 Dec 2013): LIP6, Université Pierre et Marie Curie, room 25-26/101
- 4rd Meeting (15-17 June 2015): Université Paris-Dauphine
About AMANDE
AMANDE in a nut almond shell
now available to deploy such systems (see last paragraph), we believe there is now an urgent need to work
now available to deploy such systems, we believe there is now an urgent need to work
Argumentation is at the heart of deliberation processes since people generally justify their positions and opinions by arguments. Since the early nineties, argumentation theory is studied in AI. The main limitation of existing works on argumentation theory is that they are mostly concerned by a unique agent carrying on an argumentation/deliberation process from its available information (even if some works use the metaphor of dialectical proofs). Our aim is to define a genuine multilateral theory of argumentation, involving potentially many agents, where each agent has her own information (arguments, beliefs, goals, etc.). For that purpose, we will take advantage of different formal tools, especially those developed in economy for modeling group interaction and decision processes, such as social choice (vote), game theory, and also works on logical aggregation such as belief merging and judgment aggregation. We will study how to define a common point of view regarding an argument from a set of argumentation systems. This will require to develop specific methods, but more importantly to define and study the expected properties of such methods. Once this notion of rational output will be understood, it will be important to try to distribute the process to obtain a more realistic debate framework with autonomous agents. Then the questions will be to know whether such rational output can be reached in the distributed case and which are the obtained rational properties. We shall also consider individual strategic behaviour (especially in the perspective of implementing autonomous entities), and we will in particular study if and how an agent can manage to manipulate the deliberation process. Similarly we shall consider group behaviours and study how coalition of agents can emerge.
More precisely, our main ambition with this project is to provide the theoretical foundations allowing a
Our main ambition with this project is to provide the theoretical foundations allowing a
on the theoretical foundations of such platforms.
on the theoretical foundations of such platforms.
An important application with great potential impact is related to debate systems that are emerging on the we; see for instance Debatebase and DebateGraph. The success of these platforms in their currrent form seems to suggest that they can become an important source of information, just as wikipedia is now. For instance, DebateGraph was used to produce maps for the British newspaper “The Independent” and talk shows on CNN, and is supported by the White House, the European Commission, and other institutions. These debate systems are still in their infancy though. For the moment they are mainly interfaces where people can give arguments pro or con a given issue without any particular processing and evaluation of those arguments. The AMANDE project will provide automatic reasoning/decision capabilities to these platforms.
Welcome on the webpage of the AMANDE project (1/Dec/2013 - 30/Nov/2017).
- 3rd Meeting (14-16 January 2015): CNRS Délégation Nord-Pas-de-Calais-Picardie, Lille
- 3rd Meeting (14-16 January 2015): CNRS, Délégation Nord-Pas-de-Calais-Picardie, Lille
- 3rd Meeting (14-16 January 2015): MSH, Univ. de Lille 3
- 3rd Meeting (14-16 January 2015): CNRS Délégation Nord-Pas-de-Calais-Picardie, Lille
- 3rd Meeting (14-16 January 2015): MSH, Univ. de Lille 3
- 2nd Meeting (30 June - 2 July 2014): ILLC, Univ. Amsterdam, co-located with the workshop "Arguing on the Web 2.0"
- 2nd Meeting (30 June - 2 July 2014): ILLC, Univ. Amsterdam, co-located with the workshop "Arguing on the Web 2.0"
- Kick-Off Meeting (16-17/Dec/2013): LIP6, Université Pierre et Marie Curie, room 25-26/101
- 2nd Meeting (31/June-1/July 2014): ILLC, Univ. Amsterdam, co-located with the workshop "Arguing on the Web 2.0"
- Kick-Off Meeting (16-17 Dec 2013): LIP6, Université Pierre et Marie Curie, room 25-26/101
- 2nd Meeting (30 June - 2 July 2014): ILLC, Univ. Amsterdam, co-located with the workshop "Arguing on the Web 2.0"
- 2nd Meeting (31/June-1/July 2014): ILLC, Univ. Amsterdam, co-located with the workshop "Arguing on the Web 2.0"
The project is supported by the French National Research Agency (ANR) as ANR-13-BS02-004.
The project is also supported by the "Fondation de Recherche pour l'Aéronautique et l'Espace" (FRAE).
The project is supported by the French National Research Agency (ANR) as ANR-13-BS02-004.
The project is also supported by the "Fondation de Recherche pour l'Aéronautique et l'Espace" (FRAE).
we; see for instance Debatebase and DebateGraph. The success of these platforms in their currrent form seems to suggest that they can
we; see for instance Debatebase and DebateGraph. The success of these platforms in their currrent form seems to suggest that they can
The project is supported by the French National Research Agency (ANR) as ANR-13-BS02-004.
The project is also supported by the "Fondation de Recherche pour l'Aéronautique et l'Espace" (FRAE).
The project is supported by the French National Research Agency (ANR) as ANR-13-BS02-004.
The project is also supported by the "Fondation de Recherche pour l'Aéronautique et l'Espace" (FRAE).
This work benefited from the support of the project AMANDE ANR-13-BS02-0004 of the French National Research Agency (ANR).
The project is supported by the French National Research Agency (ANR) as ANR-13-BS02-004.
The project is supported by ANR as ANR-13-BS02-004.
This work benefited from the support of the project AMANDE ANR-13-BS02-0004 of the French National Research Agency (ANR).
provide automatic reasoning/decision capabilities to these platforms.
provide automatic reasoning/decision capabilities to these platforms.
Welcome on the webpage of the AMANDE project (1/Dec/2013 - 30/Nov/2017).
Welcome on the webpage of the AMANDE project (1/Dec/2013 - 30/Nov/2017).
The project is supported by ANR as ANR-13-BS02-004. The project is also supported by the "Fondation de Recherche pour l'Aéronautique et l'Espace" (FRAE).
Welcome on the webpage of the AMANDE project (1/Dec/2013 - 30/Nov/2017). [under construction!]
Welcome on the webpage of the AMANDE project (1/Dec/2013 - 30/Nov/2017).
we; see for instance Debatebase and [[http://debategraph.org|DebateGraph ]]. The success of these platforms in their currrent form seems to suggest that they can
we; see for instance Debatebase and DebateGraph. The success of these platforms in their currrent form seems to suggest that they can
web (see for instance Debatepedia (http://debatepedia.idebate.org/) and DebateGraph (http://debategraph.org/). The success of these platforms in their currrent form seems to suggest that they can
we; see for instance Debatebase and [[http://debategraph.org|DebateGraph ]]. The success of these platforms in their currrent form seems to suggest that they can
- Numbered lists
- Another item
- more hashes produce sub-items
- Support multiparty deliberation, allowing for instance to fairly regulate a debate and avoid
manipulation, to assess the status of a given claim, or to emphasize the critical claims put forward so far.
- Analyse multiparty deliberation, allowing for instance to identify key arguments, the most influential
contributors, or the possible coalitions.
- Enable artificial agents to effectively take part in such deliberations, which raises in addition
questions pertaining to the adequate definitions of strategies for such agents.
- Support multiparty deliberation, allowing for instance to fairly regulate a debate and avoid manipulation, to assess the status of a given claim, or to emphasize the critical claims put forward so far.
- Analyse multiparty deliberation, allowing for instance to identify key arguments, the most influential contributors, or the possible coalitions.
- Enable artificial agents to effectively take part in such deliberations, which raises in addition questions pertaining to the adequate definitions of strategies for such agents.
- Numbered lists
- Another item
- more hashes produce sub-items
- Support multiparty deliberation, allowing for instance to fairly regulate a debate and avoid
- Support multiparty deliberation, allowing for instance to fairly regulate a debate and avoid
- Analyse multiparty deliberation, allowing for instance to identify key arguments, the most influential
- Analyse multiparty deliberation, allowing for instance to identify key arguments, the most influential
- Enable artificial agents to effectively take part in such deliberations, which raises in addition
- Enable artificial agents to effectively take part in such deliberations, which raises in addition
About AMANDE
The AMANDE (Advanced Multilateral Argumentation for DEliberation) project aims at providing formal tools for designing multiparty deliberation systems. The main objective is to define and study the properties of such systems, so that designers can ensure that users and possibly interacting agents are able to identify key arguments in a deliberation process, and to fairly defend their view. While the technological tools are now available to deploy such systems (see last paragraph), we believe there is now an urgent need to work on the theoretical foundations of such platforms.
Argumentation is at the heart of deliberation processes since people generally justify their positions and opinions by arguments. Since the early nineties, argumentation theory is studied in AI. The main limitation of existing works on argumentation theory is that they are mostly concerned by a unique agent carrying on an argumentation/deliberation process from its available information (even if some works use the metaphor of dialectical proofs). Our aim is to define a genuine multilateral theory of argumentation, involving potentially many agents, where each agent has her own information (arguments, beliefs, goals, etc.). For that purpose, we will take advantage of different formal tools, especially those developed in economy for modeling group interaction and decision processes, such as social choice (vote), game theory, and also works on logical aggregation such as belief merging and judgment aggregation. We will study how to define a common point of view regarding an argument from a set of argumentation systems. This will require to develop specific methods, but more importantly to define and study the expected properties of such methods. Once this notion of rational output will be understood, it will be important to try to distribute the process to obtain a more realistic debate framework with autonomous agents. Then the questions will be to know whether such rational output can be reached in the distributed case and which are the obtained rational properties. We shall also consider individual strategic behaviour (especially in the perspective of implementing autonomous entities), and we will in particular study if and how an agent can manage to manipulate the deliberation process. Similarly we shall consider group behaviours and study how coalition of agents can emerge.
More precisely, our main ambition with this project is to provide the theoretical foundations allowing a designer to :
- Support multiparty deliberation, allowing for instance to fairly regulate a debate and avoid
manipulation, to assess the status of a given claim, or to emphasize the critical claims put forward so far.
- Analyse multiparty deliberation, allowing for instance to identify key arguments, the most influential
contributors, or the possible coalitions.
- Enable artificial agents to effectively take part in such deliberations, which raises in addition
questions pertaining to the adequate definitions of strategies for such agents.
An important application with great potential impact is related to debate systems that are emerging on the web (see for instance Debatepedia (http://debatepedia.idebate.org/) and DebateGraph (http://debategraph.org/). The success of these platforms in their currrent form seems to suggest that they can become an important source of information, just as wikipedia is now. For instance, DebateGraph was used to produce maps for the British newspaper “The Independent” and talk shows on CNN, and is supported by the White House, the European Commission, and other institutions. These debate systems are still in their infancy though. For the moment they are mainly interfaces where people can give arguments pro or con a given issue without any particular processing and evaluation of those arguments. The AMANDE project will provide automatic reasoning/decision capabilities to these platforms.
- Kick-Off Meeting (16-17/12/2013): LIP6, Université Pierre et Marie Curie, room 25-26/101
- Kick-Off Meeting (16-17/Dec/2013): LIP6, Université Pierre et Marie Curie, room 25-26/101
Welcome on the webpage of the AMANDE project. [under construction!]
Welcome on the webpage of the AMANDE project (1/Dec/2013 - 30/Nov/2017). [under construction!]
- * Srdjan Vesic "Preference-based argumentation systems"* Leila Amgoud sur "Ranking-based argumentation systems"* Sébastien Konieczny "Weighted argumentation systems"
- * Srdjan Vesic: Preference-based argumentation systems* Leila Amgoud: Ranking-based argumentation systems* Sébastien Konieczny: Weighted argumentation systems
- * Patricia Everaere ""Properties of aggregation procedures"* Srdjan Vesic "Two types of separability in judgment aggregation"
- * Patricia Everaere: Properties of aggregation procedures* Srdjan Vesic: Two types of separability in judgment aggregation
- * Srdjan Vesic "Preference-based argumentation systems" slides
- * Srdjan Vesic "Preference-based argumentation systems"
- * Srdjan Vesic "Preference-based argumentation systems" Attach:rich-paf.pdf?
- * Srdjan Vesic "Preference-based argumentation systems" slides
- * Srdjan Vesic "Preference-based argumentation systems"
- * Srdjan Vesic "Preference-based argumentation systems" Attach:rich-paf.pdf?
- * Révision des systèmes d'argumentation, Jean-Guy Mailly
- * On the Revision of Argumentation Systems: Minimal Change of Arguments Statuses, Jean-Guy Mailly
- * Protocoles de persuasion argumentatifs, Nicolas Maudet
- * Protocoles argumentatifs de persuasion, Nicolas Maudet
- * Sébastien Koieczny "Weighted argumentation systems"
- * Sébastien Konieczny "Weighted argumentation systems"
- * Patricia Everaere (état de l'art sur les prop. "classiques" attendues de l'agreg de jugement, et de la fusion)* Srdjan Vesic (travail sur la séparabilité dans l’agrégation de jugements)
- * Patricia Everaere ""Properties of aggregation procedures"* Srdjan Vesic "Two types of separability in judgment aggregation"
- * Srdjan Vesic "Preference-based argumentation systems"* Leila Amgoud sur "Ranking-based argumentation systems"* Sébastien Koieczny "Weighted argumentation systems"
- * Patricia Everaere (état de l'art sur les prop. "classiques" attendues de l'agreg de jugement, et de la fusion)*Srdjan Vesic (travail sur la séparabilité dans l’agrégation de jugements)
- * Patricia Everaere (état de l'art sur les prop. "classiques" attendues de l'agreg de jugement, et de la fusion)* Srdjan Vesic (travail sur la séparabilité dans l’agrégation de jugements)
- * Présentation du WP5: Nicolas Maudet
- * Présentation du WP5: Nicolas Maudet* wrap-up
- * Présentation du WP2: Gabriella Piggozzi
- * Présentation du WP2: Gabriella Pigozzi* Patricia Everaere (état de l'art sur les prop. "classiques" attendues de l'agreg de jugement, et de la fusion)*Srdjan Vesic (travail sur la séparabilité dans l’agrégation de jugements)
- * présentation du WP6 (Dissemination, Vulgarisation, Education): Sébastien Konieczny
- * Formation des coalitions dans les jeux booléens, Elise Bonzon* TBA, TBA
- * Révision des systèmes d'argumentation, Jean-Guy Mailly* Protocoles de persuasion argumentatifs, Nicolas Maudet
- * Présentation du WP1:* Présentation du WP2:
- * Présentation du WP1: Leila Amgoud* Présentation du WP2: Gabriella Piggozzi
- * Présentation du WP3:* Présentation du WP4:
- * Présentation du WP3: Elise Bonzon* Présentation du WP4: Stefano Moretti
- * Présentation du WP5: Nicolas Maudet
- * Présentation du WP3:* Présentation du WP4:
- Présentation du WP1:
- Présentation du WP2:
- * Présentation du WP1:* Présentation du WP2:
- Présentation du WP1:
- Présentation du WP2:
- Kick-Off Meeting (16-17/12/2013): LIP6, Université Pierre et Marie Curie
- Kick-Off Meeting (16-17/12/2013): LIP6, Université Pierre et Marie Curie, room 25-26/101
- Kick-Off Meeting: LIP6, Université Pierre et Marie Curie
- Kick-Off Meeting (16-17/12/2013): LIP6, Université Pierre et Marie Curie
- Kick-Off Meeting
- Kick-Off Meeting: LIP6, Université Pierre et Marie Curie
Welcome on the webpage of the AMANDE project. [under construction!]
Welcome on the webpage of the AMANDE project. [under construction!]
- Kick-Off
Welcome to PmWiki!
A local copy of PmWiki's documentation has been installed along with the software, and is available via the documentation index.
To continue setting up PmWiki, see initial setup tasks.
The basic editing page describes how to create pages in PmWiki. You can practice editing in the wiki sandbox.
More information about PmWiki is available from http://www.pmwiki.org.
Welcome on the webpage of the AMANDE project. [under construction!]