AgreenSkills session, year: 2nd session, 2014
Receiving laboratory: ILLC Institute for Logic, Language, and Computation, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Country of origin : Netherlands
Identification, modelling and processing of the critical cases of communication
In a society dealing with an increasing amount of information, it is difficult to know what to rely on to take a decision. In a collective context, reaching a fair decision requires to identify information that is objective and relevant, or skewed toward personal interests.
The aim of this project is to bring several disciplines together, theoretical argumentation, social choice theory and dialogue modelling, in order to address the negative processes of dialogue, such as manipulation or fallacious arguments. The characterization of dialogue protocols preventing or, at least, recognizing harmful moves will ensure an honest and consensual collective decision.
After a Master’s degree in artificial intelligence during which I had the opportunity to start my research career by studying and formalizing group emotions, I specialized in the formal analysis of agents’ interactions during my PhD. More precisely, my work focused on abstract argumentation, a formalism allowing to reason with incomplete and/or inconsistent information, and the changes that argumentation systems might undergo during argumentative interactions between agents.
Since 2014, I hold a research position in the Knowledge Engineering group (UMR IATE, INRA Montpellier) where my research interest moved toward a deeper understanding of the persuasion processes in human interactions, with a focus on the rational and non-rational evaluation of arguments.
Currently, thanks to the AgreenSkills program, I have the opportunity to link my work on argumentation and persuasion with social choice theory, a topic focusing on the analysis of collective decisions from a set of individual preferences. I am in particular interested in establishing a formal framework of the deliberation process predating a vote, and under which conditions deliberation may help to output a collectively rational choice in the presence of manipulative persuasion and/or strategic argumentation. More generally, my long-term intent is to study the different types of interactions in the context of group decision, and to characterize the impact of an individual’s rhetoric on a collective.
Pierre Bisquert, Claudette Cayrol, Florence Dupin De Saint Cyr – Bannay, Marie-Christine Lagasquie-Schiex (2013). Characterizing change in abstract argumentation systems. In: Trends in Belief Revision and Argumentation Dynamics. College Publications, p. 75-102, Vol. 48, Studies in Logic.
Pierre Bisquert, Claudette Cayrol, Florence Dupin De Saint Cyr – Bannay, Marie-Christine Lagasquie-Schiex (2013). Goal-driven Changes in Argumentation: A theoretical framework and a tool. In: International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence (ICTAI 2013), Washington, USA, IEEE Computer Society, p. 610-617.
Pierre Bisquert, Claudette Cayrol, Florence Dupin De Saint Cyr – Bannay, Marie-Christine Lagasquie-Schiex (2013). Enforcement in Argumentation is a kind of Update. In: International Conference on Scalable Uncertainty Management (SUM 2013), Washington DC, USA, Springer-Verlag, LNAI 8078, p. 30-43.
Pierre Bisquert, Claudette Cayrol, Florence Dupin De Saint Cyr – Bannay, Marie-Christine Lagasquie-Schiex (2012). Duality between Addition and Removal: a Tool for Studying Change in Argumentation. In: International Conference on Information Processing and Management of Uncertainty in Knowledge-based Systems (IPMU 2012), Catania, Italy, Vol. 297, Springer Berlin / Heidelberg, Communications in Computer and Information Science, p. 219-229.
Pierre Bisquert, Claudette Cayrol, Florence Dupin De Saint Cyr – Bannay, Marie-Christine Lagasquie-Schiex (2011). Change in argumentation systems: exploring the interest of removing an argument. In: International Conference on Scalable Uncertainty Management (SUM 2011), Dayton, Ohio, Springer-Verlag, LNAI 6929, p. 275-288.