Program

The conference proceedings are available here.

We will use Zoom to host all the events in the conference. A link for participating will be sent to all registered users. The events will also be avalialbe in streaming at the following link. All presentations will include time for discussion. The presentation time will be 20 minutes for full papers (15 minutes for the talk and 5 minutes for discussion) and 15 minutes for short papers (12 minutes for the talk and 3 minutes for discussion).

The timezone for the following schedule is UTC/GMT +2 hours.

Tuesday 8 (Workshop day)

9:00-12:30 Workshops and summer school student papers morning sessions
12:30-13:45 Break
13:45-14:30 Guillermo Simari Invited talk: The Dynamics of Knowledge: Argumentation and Belief Revision
14:30-14:45 Break
14:45-18:00 Workshops and summer school student papers afternoon sessions

Wednesday 9

9:00-9:15 Opening session
9:15-10:30 Argument mining and analysis. Chair: John Lawrence
Marc Feger, Jan Steimann and Christian Meter Structure or Content? Towards Assessing Argument Relevance (f) pdf_icon ppt_icon
Debjit Paul, Juri Opitz, Maria Becker, Jonathan Kobbe, Graeme Hirst and Anette Frank Argumentative Relation Classification with Background Knowledge (f) pdf_icon ppt_icon
Kawsar Noor and Anthony Hunter Analysing Product Reviews Using Probabilistic Argumentation (f) pdf_icon
Mirko Lenz, Premtim Sahitaj, Sean Kallenberg, Christopher Coors, Lorik Dumani, Ralf Schenkel and Ralph Bergmann Towards an Argument Mining Pipeline Transforming Texts to Argument Graphs (s) pdf_icon ppt_icon
10:30-11:00 Break
11:00-12:35 Structured approaches (1): semantics, dynamics and computation. Chair: Ofer Arieli
Remi Wieten, Floris Bex, Henry Prakken and Silja Renooij Deductive and Abductive Reasoning with Causal and Evidential Information (f) pdf_icon
Marcos Cramer and Meghna Bhadra Deductive Joint Support for Rational Unrestricted Rebuttal (f) pdf_icon
Alfredo Burrieza and Antonio Yuste-Ginel Basic Beliefs and Argument-Based Beliefs in Awareness Epistemic Logic with Structured Arguments (f) pdf_icon ppt_icon
Daphne Odekerken, AnneMarie Borg and Floris Bex Estimating Stability for Efficient Argument-Based Inquiry (f) pdf_icon ppt_icon
Bruno Yun, Nir Oren and Madalina Croitoru Efficient Construction of Structured Argumentation Systems (s) pdf_icon ppt_icon
12:35-13:45 Break
13:45-14:45 Chris Reed Invited talk: Argument Technology from Philosophy to Phone pdf_icon
14:45-15:15 Break
15:15-16:50 Abstract Dialectical Frameworks, dynamics. Chair: Sarah Gaggl
Wolfgang Dvořák, Atefeh Keshavarzi Zafarghandi and Stefan Woltran Expressiveness of SETAFs and Support-Free ADFs Under 3-Valued Semantics (f) pdf_icon ppt_icon
Atefeh Keshavarzi Zafarghandi, Rineke Verbrugge and Bart Verheij A Discussion Game for the Grounded Semantics of Abstract Dialectical Frameworks (f) pdf_icon ppt_icon
Jesse Heyninck and Gabriele Kern-Isberner An Epistemic Interpretation of Abstract Dialectical Argumentation (f) pdf_icon
Ringo Baumann and Maximilian Heinrich Timed Abstract Dialectical Frameworks: A Simple Translation-Based Approach (s) pdf_icon
Jean-Guy Mailly Possible Controllability of Control Argumentation Frameworks (f) pdf_icon ppt_icon
17:00-18:00 First demo session
Markus Brenneis and Martin Mauve deliberate – Online Argumentation with Collaborative Filtering pdf_icon
Martin Caminada and Sören Uebis An Implementation of Argument-Based Discussion Using ASPIC- pdf_icon
Björn Ebbinghaus and Martin Mauve decide: Supporting Participatory Budgeting with Online Argumentation pdf_icon
Isabel Sassoon, Nadin Kokciyan, Martin Chapman, Elizabeth Sklar Vasa Curcin, Sanjay Modgil and Simon Parsons, Implementing Argument and Explanation Schemes in Dialogue pdf_icon
Daphne Odekerken, AnneMarie Borg and Floris Bex Estimating Stability for Efficient Argument-Based Inquiry pdf_icon
Mark Snaith, John Lawrence, Alison Pease and Chris Reed A Modular Platform for Argument and Dialogue pdf_icon
Simon Wells The Open Argumentation PLatform (OAPL) pdf_icon
Iwan Ittermann and Brian Plüss PEOPLES: From Private Responses to Messages to Depolarisation Nudges in Two-Party Adversarial Online Talk pdf_icon

Thursday 10

9:00-10:15 Innovative Applications. Chair: Floris Bex
Lisa A. Chalaguine and Anthony Hunter A Persuasive Chatbot using a Crowd-Sourced Argument Graph and Concerns (f) pdf_icon ppt_icon
Joe Collenette, Katie Atkinson and Trevor Bench-Capon An Explainable Approach to Deducing Outcomes in European Court of Human Rights Cases Using ADFs (f) pdf_icon
Tobias Mayer, Santiago Marro, Elena Cabrio and Serena Villata Generating Adversarial Examples for Topic-dependent Argument Classification (f) pdf_icon
Oana Cocarascu, Elena Cabrio, Serena Villata and Francesca Toni Dataset Independent Baselines for Relation Prediction in Argument Mining (s) pdf_icon
10:15-10:30 Presentations OHAAI project + ICCMA competition ppt_icon
10:30-11:00 Break
11:00-12:35 Abstract approaches (1): semantics and computation. Chair: Martin Caminada
Jérémie Dauphin, Tjitze Rienstra and Leendert Van Der Torre A Principle-Based Analysis of Weakly Admissible Semantics (f) pdf_icon ppt_icon
Beishui Liao and Leendert Van Der Torre Explanation Semantics for Abstract Argumentation (f) pdf_icon ppt_icon
Marcos Cramer and Jérémie Dauphin A First Approach to Argumentation Label Functions (s) pdf_icon
Stefano Bistarelli, Wolfgang Dvořák, Carlo Taticchi and Stefan Woltran Ranking-based Semantics from the Perspective of Claims (f) pdf_icon ppt_icon
Gianvincenzo Alfano, Sergio Greco and Francesco Parisi Computing Skeptical Preferred Acceptance in Dynamic Argumentation Frameworks with Recursive Attack and Support Relations (f) pdf_icon
12:35-13:45 Break
13:45-14:45 Catarina Dutilh Novaes Invited talk: Conflict, Adversariality, and Cooperation in Argumentation pdf_icon
14:45-15:15 Break
15:15-16:45 Graduality, probability and preferences. Chair: Nico Potyka
Anthony Hunter Learning Constraints for the Epistemic Graphs Approach to Argumentation (f) pdf_icon ppt_icon
Leila Amgoud and Victor David An Adjustment Function for Dealing with Similarities (f) pdf_icon ppt_icon
Emanuele Albini, Pietro Baroni, Antonio Rago and Francesca Toni PageRank as an Argumentation Semantics (f) pdf_icon
Kenneth Skiba, Matthias Thimm, Andrea Cohen, Sebastian Gottifredi and Alejandro J. García Abstract Argumentation Frameworks with Fallible Evidence (s) pdf_icon ppt_icon
Rafael Silva, Samy Sá and João Alcântara Semantics Hierarchy in Preference-Based Argumentation Frameworks (s) pdf_icon ppt_icon
17:00-18:00 Second demo session
Wolfgang Dvořák, Sarah A. Gaggl, Anna Rapberger, Johannes P. Wallner and Stefan Woltran The ASPARTIX System Suite pdf_icon
Dennis Craandijk and Floris Bex AGNN: A Deep Learning Architecture for Abstract Argumentation Semantics pdf_icon
Rory Duthie, John Lawrence, Chris Reed, Jacky Visser and Dimitra Zografistou Navigating Arguments and Hypotheses at Scale pdf_icon
Joe Collenette, Katie Atkinson and Trevor Bench-Capon An Explainable Approach to Deducing Outcomes in European Court of Human Rights Cases Using ADFs pdf_icon
Mei Yang, Sarah Alice Gaggl and Sebastian Rudolph Neva – Extension Visualization for Argumentation Frameworks pdf_icon
Matt Foulis, Jacky Visser and Chris Reed Dialogical Fingerprinting of Debaters pdf_icon
Henrique M.R. Jasinski, Mariela Morveli-Espinoza and Cesar A. Tacla ArgAgent: A Simulator of Goal Processing for Argumentative Agents pdf_icon

Friday 11

9:00-10:20 Structured approaches (2): semantics, consistency. Chair: Anthony Hunter
Jesse Heyninck and Ofer Arieli Argumentative Reflections of Approximation Fixpoint Theory (f) pdf_icon
Toshiko Wakaki Consistency in Assumption-Based Argumentation (f) pdf_icon
Bruno Yun, Srdjan Vesic and Madalina Croitoru Sets of Attacking Arguments for Inconsistent Datalog Knowledge Bases (f) pdf_icon ppt_icon
Ofer Arieli and Christian Strasser On Minimality and Consistency Tolerance in Logical Argumentation Frameworks (f) pdf_icon
10:20-10:30 Presentation best student paper award
10:30-11:00 Break
11:00-12:40 Dialogue, cases, game theory. Chair: Simon Wells
Niklas Rach, Wolfgang Minker and Stefan Ultes Increasing the Naturalness of an Argumentative Dialogue System Through Argument Chains (s) pdf_icon
Andreas Xydis, Christopher Hampson, Sanjay Modgil and Elizabeth Black Enthymemes in Dialogues (s) pdf_icon ppt_icon
Mark Snaith An Argument-Based Framework for Selecting Dialogue Move Types and Content (s) pdf_icon
Heng Zheng, Davide Grossi and Bart Verheij Case-Based Reasoning with Precedent Models: Preliminary Report (s) pdf_icon
Anthony Young, David Kohan Marzagão and Josh Murphy Continuum Argumentation Frameworks from Cooperative Game Theory (s) pdf_icon ppt_icon
12:40-13:45 Break
13:45-15:00 Abstract approaches (2): complexity and computation. Chair: Pietro Baroni
Jonas Klein and Matthias Thimm Revisiting SAT Techniques for Abstract Argumentation (f) pdf_icon ppt_icon
Matthias Thimm, Federico Cerutti and Mauro Vallati On Computing the Set of Acceptable Arguments in Abstract Argumentation (s) pdf_icon ppt_icon
Wolfgang Dvořák and Johannes P. Wallner Computing Strongly Admissible Sets (f) pdf_icon
Martin Caminada and Paul E. Dunne Minimal Strong Admissibility: A Complexity Analysis (f) pdf_icon ppt_icon
15:00-15:20 Closing session

Joint Workshops and summer school invited talk

The Dynamics of Knowledge: Argumentation and Belief Revision
Speaker: Guillermo R. Simari, Universidad Nacional del Sur

Abstract: The exploration of the relationships between belief revision and computational argumentation has led to significant contributions for both areas; several techniques employed in belief revision are being studied to formalize the dynamics of argumentation frameworks and the capabilities of the argumentation-based defeasible reasoning are being used to define belief change operators. By briefly considering the fundamental ideas of both areas it is possible to examine some of the mutually beneficial cross-application in different proposals that model reasoning mechanisms that combine contributions from the two domains.

Conference invited talks

Conflict, adversariality, and cooperation in argumentation
Speaker: Catarina Dutilh Novaes, VU Amsterdam

Abstract: Since at least the 1980s, the role of adversariality in argumentation has been extensively discussed. Some authors criticize adversarial conceptions and practices of argumentation and instead defend more cooperative approaches, both on moral and on epistemic grounds. Others retort that argumentation is inherently adversarial, and that the problem lies not with adversariality per se but with overly aggressive manifestations therof. In this paper, I defend the view that specific instances of argumentation are (and should be) adversarial or cooperative proportionally to pre-existing conflict. What determines whether an argumentative situation should be primarily adversarial or primarily cooperative are contextual features and background conditions, in particular the extent to which the parties involved have prior conflicting or convergent interests and goals. I articulate a notion of adversariality in terms of the relevant parties pursuing conflicting interests, and argue that, while cooperative argumentation is to be encouraged whenever possible, conflict as such is an inevitable aspect of human sociality and thus cannot be completely eliminated.

Open texture and defeasible semantic constraint
Speaker: John Horty, University of Maryland

Abstract: I will discuss some of the problems presented by open textured predicates for the semantics of natural language, as well as in legal theory. I will then (i) sketch an account of constraint in common law, (ii) suggest that this account can be adapted to help us understand open textured predicates as well, (iii) talk a bit about the reasoning involved in reaching decisions that satisfy this account of constraint, and (iv) show how this reasoning can be modeled in a simple defeasible logic.

Argument Technology from Philosophy to Phone
Speaker: Chris Reed, University of Dundee

Abstract: Computational models of argument have vast potential to transform human reasoning and decision-making wherever it occurs – taking theories rooted in philosophy, developing algorithms in data science, natural language processing and AI, and engineering solutions that could end up on a phone in everyone’s pocket. Fulfilling that potential, however, is enormously challenging. Sometimes, what’s required is overhauling our most fundamental theories to accommodate real world phenomena: arguments in the real world, for example, most typically occur in multi-party contexts, so new theories have had to be developed to account for and handle dialogical, dialectical and interactional aspects of argumentation, whilst still supporting formally well-understood phenomena such as abstraction and acceptability, audiences and values, lexical semantics and argument structure.

Keep reading...

At other times, though, what’s required is forging ahead with a pragmatic compromise at the theoretical level that sacrifices a complete computational account of all facets of argumentation, but which nonetheless helps tackle some specific problem. Applications for supporting argumentation in domains as diverse as law, science and intelligence analysis have adopted this tack, delivering prototypes that demonstrate the potential of argument technology in different sectors. At yet other times the problem is more a practical one: how on Earth do we assemble datasets of argumentation large enough for training supervised machine learning algorithms (let alone large enough for sheer statistical learning)? Or how can we develop, ab initio, linguistic annotation methods that can keep up with live debate? Right across its broad range of competence, the field of computational models of argument has had to pull itself up by its bootstraps, developing its own working methods, requirements, data standards, software tooling, research challenges and vocabulary. Then again, sometimes what’s required is hard academic slog to drive forward performance: the new field of argument mining is an excellent example where progress is being made in leaps and bounds, even as the challenges are being broadened – from domain specific to domain independent, monolingual to multilingual, monological to dialogical. It is the determined inspiration of those working in argument mining that is responsible for results starting to come through that represent acceptable performance on realistic tasks. But perhaps the greatest challenge, though, is what in commercial terms is known as route to market. How do we get the fruits of our labours into the hands of the hundreds of millions of people who could benefit from it? Whether contributing to the quality of national and international debate, helping the general public identify fake news, improving counterterrorism threat analysis, or enhancing democratic processes – or whether nudging arguments in a pub to be a bit more accurate, helping separating couples reach more acceptable agreements, or offering an elderly parent some advice on the latest Covid rumour: wherever argument plays a role, argument technology has the potential to improve matters. Neither developing new philosophical theory nor building new phone apps (nor anything in between) is enough on its own, but with a clearer game plan for the community as a whole there is an opportunity for us to start to fulfil the potential we have collectively for making a significant difference in the world.

Invited Speakers

Catarina Dutilh Novaes - Department of Philosophy, VU Amsterdam, Netherlands

profile

I am a professor and University Research Chair at the Department of Philosophy of the VU Amsterdam. Before that, I was a professor and Rosalind Franklin fellow at the Department of Theoretical Philosophy of the Faculty of Philosophy of the University of Groningen (2011-2018). I am also a Professorial Fellow at Arché in St. Andrews (2019-2024), an external member of the Munich Center for Mathematical Philosophy, and one of the Editors-in-Chief of Synthese. I am currently running the ERC Consolidator project 'The Social Epistemology of Argumentation' (2018-2023). My main fields of research are history and philosophy of logic, philosophy of mathematics, and social epistemology. I also have general interests in medieval philosophy, philosophy of psychology and cognitive science, general philosophy of science, philosophy of mind, issues pertaining to gender and race, and empirically-informed approaches to philosophy in general.

John Horty - Philosophy Department, University of Maryland, United States

profile

John Horty received his BA in Classics and Philosophy from Oberlin College and his PhD in Philosophy from the University of Pittsburgh; he is currently a Professor in the Philosophy Department and the Institute for Advanced Computer Studies at the University of Maryland, as well as an Affiliate Professor in the Computer Science Department. His interests include philosophical logic, artificial intelligence, cognitive science more generally, theories of practical reasoning, the philosophy of language, ethics, and the philosophy of law. Horty is the author of three books as well as papers on a variety of topics in logic, philosophy, and computer science. His work has been supported by three fellowships from the National Endowment for Humanities and several grants from the National Science Foundation; he has held visiting fellowships at the Netherlands Institute for Advanced Studies, and at the Center for Advanced Studies in Behavioral Sciences at Stanford University.

Chris Reed - University of Dundee, Scotland

profile

Chris Reed is Professor of Computer Science and Philosophy at the University of Dundee in Scotland, where he heads the Centre for Argument Technology (www.arg.tech). Chris has been working at the overlap between argumentation theory and artificial intelligence for two decades and specialises in the theory, practice and commercialisation of argument technology. He has won over £6.5m of funding from government, charity and commercial sources, has over 200 peer-reviewed papers in the area including five books, and has served as a director of several technology companies. He has also been instrumental in the development of the Argument Interchange Format, an international standard for computational work in the area; he is spear-heading the major engineering effort behind the Argument Web; and he is a founding editor of the Journal of Argument & Computation. He also provides evidence to various committees at Westminster and his media appearances and writing have reached an audience in excess of 30 million people.

Guillermo R. Simari - Universidad Nacional del Sur, República Argentina

profile

Guillermo R. Simari is a full professor of Logic for Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence at the Universidad Nacional del Sur (UNS), Bahia Blanca, Argentina. He studied mathematics at the same university and received a master of science in computer science and a Ph.D. in Computer Science from Washington University, USA. The focus of his research is on the formal foundations and effective implementation of defeasible reasoning systems for autonomous agents. He has graduated 25 doctoral students. Dr. Simari chairs the Artificial Intelligence Research and Development Laboratory (LIDIA) and has been Chair of the Department of Computer Science and Engineering and the Institute for Computer Science and Engineering (UNS) (CONICET-UNS). He currently is in the Editorial Boards of Artificial Intelligence Journal, Knowledge Engineering Review, Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, Argument and Computation, and Journal of Logic and Computation (Co-editor of the Argumentation Corner). He has published more than 65 journal papers and more of 100 international conference papers.

Accepted papers

Full

Albini, Baroni, Rago & Toni PageRank as an Argumentation Semantics
Alfano, Greco & Parisi Computing Skeptical Preferred Acceptance in Dynamic Argumentation Frameworks with Recursive Attack and Support Relations
Amgoud & David An Adjustment Function For Dealing With Similarities
Arieli & Strasser On Minimality and Consistency Tolerance in Logical Argumentation Frameworks
Bistarelli, Dvorak, Taticchi & Woltran Ranking-Based Semantics from the Perspective of Claims
Burrieza & Yuste-Ginel Basic beliefs and argument-based beliefs in awareness epistemic logic with structured arguments
Caminada & Dunne Minimal Strong Admissibility: a Complexity Analysis
Chalaguine & Hunter A Persuasive Chatbot using a Crowd-Sourced Argument Graph and Concerns
Colenette, Atkinson & Bench-Capon An explainable approach to deducing outcomes in European Court of Human Rights cases using ADFs video_logo
Cramer & Bhadra Deductive Joint Support for Rational Unrestricted Rebuttal
Dauphin, Rienstra & Van der Torre A Principle-Based Analysis of Weakly Admissible Semantics
Dvorak & Wallner Computing Strongly Admissible Sets
Dvorak, Zafarghandi & Woltran Expressiveness of SETAFs and Support-Free ADFs under 3-valued Semantics
Feger, Steimann & Meter Structure or Content? Towards assessing Argument Relevance
Heyninck & Arieli Argumentative Reflections of Approximation Fixpoint Theory
Heyninck & Kern-Isberner An Epistemic Interpretation of Abstract Dialectical Argumentation
Hunter Learning Constraints for the Epistemic Graphs Approach to Argumentation
Klein & Thimm Revisiting SAT Techniques for Abstract Argumentation
Liao & Van der Torre Explanation Semantics for Abstract Argumentation
Mailly Possible Controllability of Control Argumentation Frameworks
Mayer, Marro, Cabrio & Villata Generating Adversarial Examples for Topic-dependent Argument Classification
Noor & Hunter Analysing Product Reviews using Probabilistic Argumentation
Odekerken, Borg & Bex Estimating Stability for Efficient Argument-based Inquiry video_logo
Paul, Opitz, Becker, Kobbe, Hirst & Frank Argumentative Relation Classification with Background Knowledge
Wakaki Consistency in Assumption-Based Argumentation
Wieten, Bex, Prakken & Renooij Deductive and Abductive Reasoning with Causal and Evidential Information
Yun, Vesic & Croitoru Sets of Attacking Arguments for Inconsistent Datalog Knowledge Bases
Zafarghandi, Verbrugge & Verheij A Discussion Game for the Grounded Semantics of Abstract Dialectical Frameworks

Short

Albuquerque, Alcantara & Sa Semantics Hierarchy in Preference-Based Argumentation Frameworks
Baumann & Heinrich Timed Abstract Dialectical Frameworks
Cocarascu, Cabrio, Villata & Toni Dataset Independent Baselines for Relation Prediction in Argument Mining
Cramer & Dauphin Argumentation Label Functions
Lenz, Sahitaj, Kallenberg, Coors, Dumani, Schenkel & Bergmann Towards an Argument Mining Pipeline Transforming Texts to Argument Graphs
Rach, Minker & Ultes Increasing the Naturalness of an Argumentative Dialogue System through Argument Chains
Skiba, Thimm, Cohen, Gottifredi & Garcia Abstract Argumentation Frameworks with Fallible Evidence
Snaith An argument-based framework for selecting dialogue move types and content
Thimm, Cerutti & Vallati On Computing the Set of Acceptable Arguments in Abstract Argumentation
Xydis, Hampson, Modgil & Black Enthymemes in Dialogues
Young, Mazagao & Murphy Continuum Argumentation Frameworks from Cooperative Game Theory
Yun, Oren & Croitoru Efficient Construction of Structured Argumentation Systems
Zheng, Grossi & Verheij Case-Based Reasoning with Precedent Models

Demo Abstracts

Brenneis & Mauve deliberate – Online Argumentation with Collaborative Filtering video_logo
Caminada & Uebis An Implementation of Argument-Based Discussion using ASPIC- video_logo
Craandijk & Bex AGNN: A Deep Learning Architecture for Abstract Argumentation Semantics video_logo
Duthie, Lawrene, Reed, Visser & Zografistou Navigating Arguments and Hypotheses at Scale video_logo
Dvorak, Gaggl, Rapberger, Wallner & Woltran The ASPARTIX system suite video_logo
Ebbinghaus & Mauve decide: Supporting Participatory Budgeting with Online Argumentation video_logo
Foulis, Visser & Reed Dialogical Fingerprinting of Debaters video_logo
Ittermann & Pluss PEOPLES: From Private Responses to Messages to Depolarisation Nudges in Two-Party Adversarial Online Talk video_logo
Jasinski, Espinoza & Tacla ArgAgent: A Simulator of Goal Processing for Argumentatitve Agents video_logo
Sasson, Kokciyan, Chapman, Sklar, Curcin, Modgil & Parsons Implementing argument and explanation schemes in dialogue video_logo
Snaith, Lawrence, Pease & Reed A modular platform for argument and dialogue video_logo
Wells The Open Argumentation PLatform (AOPL) video_logo
Yang, Gaggl & Rudolph Neva - Extension Visualization for Argumentation Frameworks video_logo

Program chair

Program Committee