Fifth International Conference on Computational Models of Argument

September 9th - 12th 2014


COMMA attendees are expected to arrive on the evening of Monday, 8th September (from when accommodation is booked for those who have chosen to stay at the conference hotel). The conference will run Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and close at lunchtime on Friday 12th September, to give sufficient time for those making their way back to airports.

The conference will involve three invited talks, two demo sessions, a reception at Edradour distillery and a conference dinner at Blair Castle.

You can find the online publication with temporary access here.

COMMA 2014 Flickr photo album


Tuesday 9th

Session : Preferences and Support Chair: Rodrigues
Ofer Arieli and Tjitze Reinstra Preferential Reasoning Based On Abstract Argumentation Semantics

Martin Caminada, Sanjay Modgil and Nir Oren Preferences and Unrestricted Rebut

Sylwia Polberg and Nir Oren Revisiting Support in Abstract Argumentation Systems
Session: Applications I Chair: Gordon

Katie Atkinson and Trevor Bench-Capon Taking the Long View: Looking Ahead in Practical Reasoning

Chiaki Sakama Counterfactual Reasoning in Argumentation Frameworks

Juyeon Kang and Patrick Saint-Dizier A Discourse Grammar for Processing Arguments in Context

Isabel Sassoon, Jeroen Keppens and Peter McBurney Towards Argumentation for Statistical Model Selection

Rolando Medellin, Chris Reed and Vicki Hanson Spoken interaction with broadcast debatest
Session : Alternatives I Chair: van der Torre

Floris Bex Towards an integrated theory of causal scenarios and evidential arguments

Elise Bonzon, Nicolas Maudet and Stefano Moretti Coalitional games for abstract argumentation
Reception at Edradour (bus departs hotel 15:00, departs distillery 17:00; or a 20-30 minute walk)

Wednesday 10th

Session: Dialogue Chair: Prakken

Magdalena Kacprzak, Marcin Dziubinski and Katarzyna Budzynska Strategies in Dialogues: A game-theoretic approach

Floris Bex, John Lawrence and Chris Reed Generalising argument dialogue with the Dialogue Game Execution Platform

Seyed Ali Hosseini, Sanjay Modgil and Odinaldo Rodrigues Enthymeme Construction in Dialogues using Shared Knowledge

Katarzyna Budzynska, Janier Mathilde, Juyeon Kang, Chris Reed, Patrick Saint-Dizier, Manfred Stede and Olena Yaskorska Towards Argument Mining from Dialogue
Session: Semantics Chair: Modgil

Martin Caminada Strong Admissibility Revisited

Wolfgang Dvořák, Thomas Linsbichler, Emilia Oikarinen and Stefan Woltran Resolution-based grounded semantics revisited

Claudia Schulz and Francesca Toni Complete Assumption Labellings

Odinaldo Rodrigues and Dov Gabbay A self-correcting iteration schema for argumentation networks

Hajime Sawamura, Jacques Riche, Yutaka Oomidou and Takeshi Hagiwara Balanced Semantics for Argumentation based on Heider's Socio-Psychological Balance Theory
Lunch/Demo Session I

Keynote: Prof. Guillermo Simari

Universidad Nacional del Sur, Bahia Blanca Argentina

Chair: Parsons

On the Properties of the Relation between Argumentation Semantics and Argumentation Inference Operators.

The problem of finding properties that characterizes the relation between argumentation semantics and argumentation inference operators has beginning to surface in the last years.Several works have addresses this concern proposing different "postulates" that reflect the intuitions in this respect. Argumentative reasoning is by nature defeasible and that distinct feature must have a deep influence on the resulting constrains. We believe that the very essence of argumentation should affect the manner in which the required properties are described.

Session: Implementation and Complexity Chair: Lagasquie-Schiex

Richard Booth, Martin Caminada, Paul Dunne, Mikolaj Podlaszewski and Iyad Rahwan Complexity Properties of Critical Sets of Arguments

Stefano Bistarelli, Fabio Rossi and Francesco Santini Benchmarking Hard Problems in Random Abstract AFs: The Stable Semantics

Paul Dunne and Katie Atkinson Properties of Random VAFs and Implications for Efficient Algorithms

Bas van Gijzel and Henrik Nilsson A principled approach to the implementation of argumentation models

Federico Cerutti, Massimiliano Giacomin and Mauro Vallati Algorithm Selection for Preferred Extensions Enumeration

Thursday 11th

Session: Structured Argumentation Chair: Hunter

Antonis Kakas, Francesca Toni and Paolo Mancarella Argumentation Logic

Ofer Arieli and Christian Strasser Dynamic Derivations for Sequent-Based Logical Argumentation

Diana Grooters and Henry Prakken Combining Paraconsistent Logic with Argumentation

Leon van der Torre and Serena Villata An ASPIC-based legal argumentation framework for deontic reasoning
Session: Applications II Chair: Atkinson

Floris Bex and Trevor Bench-Capon Understanding and arguing with narratives

Alison Pease, Katarzyna Budzynska, John Lawrence and Chris Reed Lakatos Games for Mathematical Argument

Irene-Anna Diakidoy, Antonis Kakas, Loizos Michael and Rob Miller Story Comprehension through Argumentation

Katarzyna Budzynska, Andrea Rocci and Olena Yaskorska Financial Dialogue Games: A Protocol for Earnings Conference Calls

Abdallah Arioua, Nouredine Tamani, Madalina Croitoru and Patrice Buche Query Failure Explanation in Inconsistent Knowledge Bases: An Argumentation Approach
Lunch/Demo Session II

Keynote: Diane Litman

University of Pittsburgh

Chair: Reed

Argument Mining from Text for Teaching and Assessing Writing.

The written and diagrammed arguments of students (and the mappings between them) are educational data that can be automatically mined for purposes of student instruction and assessment. This talk will illustrate some of the opportunities and challenges in educationally-oriented argument mining from text. I will first describe how we are using natural processing to develop argument mining systems that are being embedded in two types of educationaltechnologies: computerized essay grading and computer-supported peer review. I will then present the results of empirical evaluations of these technologies, using argumentative writing data obtained from elementary, high school, and university students

Session: Uncertainty Chair: Woltran

Bart Verheij Arguments and Their Strength: Revisiting Pollock's Anti-Probabilistic Starting Points

Anthony Hunter and Matthias Thimm Probabilistic Argument Graphs for Argumentation Lotteries

Pietro Baroni, Massimiliano Giacomin and Paolo Vicig On Rationality Conditions for Epistemic Probabilities in Abstract Argumentation

Pierpaolo Dondio Multi-Valued and Probabilistic Argumentation Frameworks

Matthias Thimm and Gabriele Kern-Isberner On Controversiality of Arguments and Stratified Labelings
Conference Dinner at Blair Castle Bus departs hotel 18:20, departs castle 22:45

Friday 12th

Session: Abstract Dialectical Frameworks Chair: Kakas

Martin Diller, Johannes Peter Wallner and Stefan Woltran Reasoning in Abstract Dialectical Frameworks Using Quantified Boolean Formulas

Sarah Alice Gaggl and Hannes Strass Decomposing Abstract Dialectical Frameworks

Thomas Linsbichler Splitting Abstract Dialectical Frameworks

Stefan Ellmauthaler and Hannes Strass The DIAMOND System for Computing with Abstract Dialectical Frameworks

Keynote: Rineke Verbrugge

University of Groningen

Chair: Oren

Taking the perspective of the other: From children's stories to negotiations

Computational agents often reason about other agents' beliefs, knowledge, goals and plans, based on formal logics. Usually they are capable of an arbitrary amount of recursion when reasoning about their interlocutors: "Alice believes that I believe that Alice believes that I wrote a novel under pseudonym" and so onwards. However, people lose track of such `theory of mind' reasoning after a few levels. If software agents work together with human teammates, it is very important that they take into account the limits of social cognition of their human counterparts. Otherwise an international negotiation, for example, fails, even when it has potential for a win-win solution. In this talk, I will discuss several strands of research related to recursive theory of mind: children's development from first-order theory of mind ('Mommy doesn't know that I took the cookie") to second-order theory of mind ("Alice believes that I believe that she wrote a novel under pseudonym") in story tasks; adults' limitations and strengths in higher-order social reasoning in games; and the question why higher-order theory of mind may have evolved in the first place. To investigate these questions, we take logic into the lab and combine computational cognitive models, agent-based models, and empirical research with adults and children.