Recent prior studies with argumentation systems have shown that, unfortunately, with larger learner groups using argumentation software over longer periods of time, argument maps inevitably increase greatly in size and complexity, often leading to learner confusion. To help users understand and navigate within large and complex argument maps, we implemented an initial version of mini maps withi...

Schulte im Walde et al. (2008) presented a novel approach to semantic verb classication. The predicate argument model (PAC) presented in their paper models selectional preferences by using soft clustering that incorporates the Expectation Maximization (EM) algorithm and the MDL principle. In this paper, I will show how the model handles the task of differentiating between plausible and implausi...

A sample of 349 college students completed an argument evaluation test (AET) in which they evaluated arguments concerning real-life situations. A separate regression analysis was conducted for each student predicting his or her evaluations of argument quality from an objective indicator of argument quality and the strength of his or her prior beliefs about the target propositions. The beta weig...

Reasoning with hypothetical cases helps decision-makers evaluate alternate hypotheses for deciding a case. The hypotheticals demonstrate the sensitivity of a hypothesis to apparently small factual differences that may require different results because they shift the tradeoffs among conflicting underlying principles. By anticipating variations, the decision-maker seeks to formulate as general an...

Argument & Computation (A&C) enters its seventh year, renewed in two respects: • A new access policy with a new publisher: the journal adopts a full open access policy with no fees for authors who submit a paper during coming two years at least. We are indebted to the new publisher IOS Press for its enthusiastic support in enabling and promoting this important transition; • A renewed editorial ...

This paper reports progress in realizing human-agent argumentation, which we argue will be part of future Computer-Supported Collaborative Argumentation (CSCA) tools. With a particular interest in argument mapping, we present two investigations demonstrating how a particular agent-oriented language and architecture can augment CSCA: (i) the use of the IBIS formalism enabling Brahms agents to si...

Rapid growth in the area of argument mining has resulted in an ever increasing volume of analysed argument data. Being able to store information about arguments people make in favour or against different opinions, decisions and actions is a highly valuable resource, yet extremely challenging for sense-making. How, for example, can an analyst quickly check whether in a corpus of citizen dialogue...

This paper presents our efforts to create argument structures from meeting transcripts automatically. We show that unit labels of argument diagrams can be learnt and predicted by a computer with an accuracy of 78,52% and 51,43% on an unbalanced and balanced set respectively. We used a corpus of over 250 argument diagrams that was manually created by applying the Twente Argument Schema. In this ...

In this paper we are interested in the computational and formal analysis of the persuasive impact that an argument can produce on a human agent. We propose a dual process cognitive computational model based on the highly influential work of Kahneman and investigate its reasoning mechanisms in the context of argument evaluation. This formal model is a first attempt to take a greater account of h...

An inconsistent knowledge base can be abstracted as a set of arguments and a defeat relation among them. There can be more than one consistent way to evaluate such an argumentation graph. Collective argument evaluation is the problem of aggregating the opinions of multiple agents on how a given set of arguments should be evaluated. It is crucial not only to ensure that the outcome is logically ...