Many congratulations to Mark Snaith who this morning successfully defended his PhD thesis. He was examined by Prof. Guillermo Simari (Universidad Nacional del Sur, Argentina) and Dr. Keith Edwards (Dundee). Mark is staying on in the group as a postdoctoral research assistant.
We are delighted to be hosting a visit from David Price of debategraph. David will be with the group all day on 18 January, including giving a School seminar in Wolfson on his experiences with debategraph in different application contexts.
Argumentation Technology has been marked as one of the ten priority areas for the University’s new Dundee Fellows scheme, which offers a number of permanent (i.e. tenured) lectureships with low teaching loads, to support the career development of strong new academic appointments. Excellent research potential with evidence of existing top quality publications is the key criterion.
A Dundee Fellow Research Lectureship in the Argumentation Research Group is an additional post to the recently advertised Lectureship in the group, and represents a significant investment and expression of confidence by the University in this area of research. Applications from candidates with experience in all areas with relevance to argument and debate are invited, but we are particularly keen to see applications from those with a demonstrated track record in artificial intelligence, computational linguistics, discourse processing, formal models of the law, or mathematical logic.
Further information about the Argumentation Research Group ARG:dundee can be found at www.arg.tech, and about the Dundee Fellows scheme at www.dundee.ac.uk/dundeefellows
Deadline for applications is 23 January 2013. For further information, please contact Prof. Chris Reed by email c.a.reedATdundee.ac.uk or by telephone (+44 1382 388083). You can apply online.
We’ve been attracting quite a lot of media attention lately:
We are delighted to be hosting a visit from Martin Caminada who has recently joined the University of Aberdeen. He will be here on 12 December to deliver a seminar in Wolfson entitled,
Argumentation as Inference versus Argumentation as Dialogue —
reconciling two lines of research
Abstract:
In the formal argumentation community, one can distinguish two main lines of research: argumentation as inference and argumentation as dialogue. The first line of research, going back to the work of Pollock, Vreeswijk and Simari & Loui, is focused in argumentation as a way of performing non-monotonic entailment. That is, it is focused on the *outcome* of argumentation. The second line of research, going back to the work of Hamblin, Mackenzie and Walton & Krabbe, is focused on argumentation as dialectics, involving various actors. That is, it is focused on the *process* of argumentation.
In our recent work, we aim to reconcile these two lines of research.
That is, we aim to express argument-based entailment as the ability to
win a discussion. In particular, we are able to show that:
(1) grounded semantics can be interpreted in terms of a persuasion dialogue
(2) (credulous) preferred semantics can be interpreted in terms of Socratic dialogue
(3) ideal and stable semantics can both be interpreted as specific sub-forms of Socratic dialogue
Apart from abstract argumentation, we also examine the possibilities of redefining ASPIC-style entailment in terms of structured dialogue. In general, we think that argument-based inference is not so much about what is true, but about what can be defended in rational discussion.
We are delighted to host a visit from Ashwag Maghraby from the University of Edinburgh who will be visiting us Wednesday, 28 November, 2012 and will be delivering a seminar in Wolfson on,
Bridging the Specification Protocol Gap in Argumentation
Abstract. Today, argumentation is gaining greater visibility since it is being used as part of the high-level specification of multi-agent systems (MAS). However, as we build complete MAS that involve argumentation, there is a need to produce concrete implementations in which these abstract specifications are realised via protocols coordinating agent behaviour. This creates a gap between standard argument specification and deployment of protocols. This research attempts to close this gap by using a combination of automated synthesis and verification methods. More precisely, this research proposes a means to moving rapidly from argument specification to protocol implementation, using the Argument Interchange Format (AIF is a generic specification language for argument structure) as the specification language and the Lightweight Coordination Calculus (LCC is an executable specification language used for coordinating agents in open systems) as an implementation language. The resulting system provides engineers with a means of moving rapidly from argument specification to implementation. In this presentation, I will start with a brief introduction about MAS as well argumentation. Then I will explain, by using an example, how the chosen automated synthesis and verification methods were used to close the gap between standard argument specification and deployment of protocols.
Applications are invited for a new lectureship in the Argumentation Research Group within the School of Computing at the University of Dundee.
The group’s expansion is associated with the development of new postgraduate level teaching in which the new lecturer will be expected to play a leading role. This teaching responsibility will involve development of module specifications, student recruitment, and preparation and delivery of materials in areas related to argumentation and negotiation.
The post will be held in the Argumentation Research Group in the School of Computing at the University of Dundee. The group’s research is funded by EPSRC, RCUK, JISC, the Leverhulme Trust and others, and is published in top journals such as Artificial Intelligence. We expect the new appointment to make a significant contribution to this performance, in both securing RCUK, EU and other funds, and also in publication of the highest quality research results. We expect, in particular, that applicants should have a CV which includes papers that demonstrate the very highest levels of significance, originality and rigour in REF terms.
The group is looking to complement its existing research strengths with expertise which can link argumentation with computational linguistics, rhetoric, economics or the law. Some experience with argumentation in one of these contexts is essential, as is a strong background in computer science and artificial intelligence.
At the most recent RAE, the School’s research was rated fourth in Scotland, with two thirds of its research rated world leading or internationally excellent (4* or 3*). The School also has the third highest research income per capita of any Computer Science Department in the UK. Dundee has been ranked amongst the top places in the world for scientists to work (The Scientist), and has one of the lowest costs of living in the UK.
The post will commence from 01 March 2013 (or other date by negotiation), and is permanent, subject to probation. More information is available from the research group website at www.arg.tech.
Remuneration will be at Grade 8, depending on qualifications and
experience (£37,012 – £44,166). Further details and an application pack are
available from our website: www.jobs.dundee.ac.uk Alternatively, contact
Personnel Services, University of Dundee, Dundee, DD1 4HN, tel: (01382) 384817 (answering machine).
The closing date for applications is 14 January 2013.
Please quote Reference number ASE/0175
Applications are invited for a postdoctoral research assistant position to work on a new RCUK funded project in the Argumentation Research Group within the School of Computing at the University of Dundee.
The University of Dundee has partnered with the University of Newcastle in an RCUK Digital Economy Hub focusing on Social Inclusion in the Digital Economy (see www.side.ac.uk). As a part of this major initiative, a new collaboration has formed between the Argumentation Research Group at Dundee and the BBC. The focus of this collaboration is upon how older people in particular might engage with online resources associated with broadcast programmes. Specifically, we are interested in exploring how existing tools for online argument and debate developed using analysis of the BBC Radio 4 programme, ‘The Moral Maze’ might be extended to support and encourage engagement from older listeners.
The post will require experience with both argumentation and human centered computing, ideally with a focus on usability for excluded or disadvantaged users. Good design skills and software engineering experience will be important, as we will be deploying software with users.
The job will also involve engaging with programme makers and producers at the BBC, so a high level of professionalism and reliability is essential.
At the most recent RAE, the School’s research was rated fourth in Scotland, with two thirds of its research rated world leading or internationally excellent (4* or 3*). The School also has the third highest research income per capita of any Computer Science Department in the UK. Dundee has been ranked amongst the top places in the world for scientists to work (The Scientist), and has one of the lowest costs of living in the UK.
The post will be held in the Argumentation Research Group in the School of Computing at the University of Dundee. The post will commence from 01 February 2013 (or other date by negotiation), and is fixed term until 30 September 2014. More information is available from the research group website at www.arg.tech.
Remuneration will be at Grade 7, at a spinal point dependent on qualifications and experience (£29,249 – £35,938). Further details and an application pack are available from our website: www.jobs.dundee.ac.uk Alternatively, contact Personnel Services, University of Dundee, Dundee, DD1 4HN, tel: (01382) 384817 (answering machine).
The closing date for applications is 7 January 2013.
Please quote Reference number ASE/0176
Last night the ARG:dundee team conducted close argument analysis on a live 45 minute broadcast of an episode of the BBC Radio 4 programme, The Moral Maze, using our Argument AnalysisWall.
We aimed to make debates available on the Argument Web for all the different compatible online tools to access. Specifically, we wanted to analyse broadcast debate and support online interaction with those arguments. Live. To do it, we needed lots of analysts working together, using a large touch screen running bespoke software to collaboratively analyse the discourse. Stenographic transcription, argument segmentation and enthymeme reconstruction are all carried out by other team members. There are more details and a short video of the result is available and an unedited single-camera view of the full 45 minutes is also available. A more interesting, multi-camera version of the full analysis is also available.
TOAST calculates acceptability semantics of structured argumentation frameworks.
As part of the work on the Dialectical Argumentation Machines project, we have implemented a version of Prakken‘s ASPIC+ framework. The application allows computation of various acceptability semantics over structured argumentation systems, making use of the Dung-O-Matic engine designed for abstract frameworks.
The system is deployed as a web service, with a demonstration interface available at http://www.arg.dundee.ac.uk/toast/. A help page, with details of the syntax used, can be found at http://www.arg.dundee.ac.uk/toast/help/web.
An API for programmatic access to the web service is also available.
The reference to go with it is:
Snaith, M. & Reed, C. (2012) “TOAST: online ASPIC+ implementation” in Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2012), IOS Press, Vienna.
It’s reasonably scalable: it’s being used with rulesets of around 20,000 in work by Phil Quinlan. It’s also providing an evaluation back-end to the AIFdb. But as ever, please let us have your feedback.
