Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A logic of argumentation for specification and verification of abstract argumentation frameworks

  • Published:
Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper, we propose a logic of argumentation for the specification and verification (LA4SV) of requirements on Dung’s abstract argumentation frameworks. We distinguish three kinds of decision problems for argumentation verification, called extension verification, framework verification, and specification verification respectively. For example, given a political requirement like “if the argument to increase taxes is accepted, then the argument to increase services must be accepted too,” we can either verify an extension of acceptable arguments, or all extensions of an argumentation framework, or all extensions of all argumentation frameworks satisfying a framework specification. We introduce the logic of argumentation verification to specify such requirements, and we represent the three verification problems of argumentation as model checking and theorem proving properties of the logic. Moreover, we recast the logic of argumentation verification in a modal framework, in order to express multiple extensions, and properties like transitivity and reflexivity of the attack relation. Finally, we introduce a logic of meta-argumentation where abstract argumentation is used to reason about abstract argumentation itself. We define the logic of meta-argumentation using the fibring methodology in such a way to represent attack relations not only among arguments but also among attacks. We show how to use this logic to verify the requirements of argumentation frameworks where higher-order attacks are allowed [A preliminary version of the logic of argumentation compliance was called the logic of abstract argumentation (2005).]

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Baroni, P., Giacomin, M.: On principle-based evaluation of extension-based argumentation semantics. Artif. Intell. 171(10–15), 675–700 (2007)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Baroni, P., Cerutti, F., Giacomin, M., Guida, G.: Encompassing attacks to attacks in abstract argumentation frameworks. In: Proceedings of the 10th European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty (ECSQARU 2009). LNCS, vol. 5590, pp. 83–94. Springer (2009)

  3. Baroni, P., Cerutti, F., Giacomin, M., Guida, G.: AFRA: argumentation framework with recursive attacks. Int. J. Approx. Reason. 52(1), 19–37 (2011)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Barringer, H., Gabbay, D., Woods, J.: Temporal dynamics of argumentation networks in volume dedicated to Joerg Siekmann. In: Hutter, D., Stephan, W. (eds.) Mechanising Mathematical Reasoning. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2605, pp. 59–98. Springer (2005)

  5. Barringer, H., Gabbay, D.,Woods, J.: Temporal, numerical and metalevel dynamics in argumentation networks. Argumentation and Computation 3(2–3), 143–202 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Besnard, P., Doutre, S.: Checking the acceptability of a set of arguments. In: Proceedings of the 10th international workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning (NMR 2004), pp. 59–64 (2004)

  7. Bex, F., Prakken, H., Reed, C., Walton, D.: Towards a formal account of reasoning about evidence: argumentation schemes and generalisations. Artif. Intell. Law 11(2–3), 125–165 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bochman, A.: Collective argumentation and disjunctive logic programming. J. Log. Comput. 13, 405–428 (2003)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Bochman, A.: A causal approach to nonmonotonic reasoning. Artif. Intell. 160(1–2), 105–143 (2004)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. Bochman, A.: A causal logic of logic programming. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2004), pp. 427–437 (2004)

  11. Bochman, A.: Propositional argumentation and causal reasoning. In: Proceedings of the 19th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2005), pp. 388–393 (2005)

  12. Boella, G., Hulstijn, J., van der Torre, L.: A logic of abstract argumentation. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems (ArgMAS 2005). LNCS, vol. 4049, pp. 29–41. Springer (2005)

  13. Boella, G., Gabbay, D.M., Genovese, V., van der Torre, L.: Fibred security language. Stud. Log. 92(3), 395–436 (2009)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Boella, G., Gabbay, D.M., van der Torre, L., Villata, S.: Meta-argumentation modelling i: methodology and techniques. Stud. Log. 93(2–3), 297–355 (2009)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Boella, G., van der Torre, L., Villata, S.: On the acceptability of meta-arguments. In: Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Intelligent Agent Technology (IAT 2009), pp. 259–262. IEEE (2009)

  16. Boella, G., Gabbay, D.M., Genovese, V., van der Torre, L.: Higher-order coalition logic. In: Proceedings of the 19th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI 2010). Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 215, pp 555–560. IOS Press (2010)

  17. Boella, G., Gabbay, D.M., van der Torre, L., Villata, S.: Support in abstract argumentation. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2010). Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, pp 40–51. IOS Press (2010)

  18. Burgemeestre, B., Hulstijn, J., Tan, Y.H.: Value-based argumentation for justifying compliance. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Deontic Logic in Computer Science (DEON 2010). LNCS, vol. 6181, pp. 214–228. Springer (2010)

  19. Caminada, M., Amgoud, L.: On the evaluation of argumentation formalisms. Artif. Intell. 171(5–6), 286–310 (2007)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. Caminada, M., Gabbay, D.M.: A logical account of formal argumentation. Stud. Log. 93(2–3), 109–145 (2009)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  21. Coste-Marquis, S., Devred, S., Konieczny, S., Lagasquie-Schiex, M., Marquis, P.: On the merging of Dung’s argumentation systems. Artif. Intell. 171(10–15), 730–753 (2007)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  22. Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.C.: Coalitions of arguments: a tool for handling bipolar argumentation frameworks. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 25(1), 83–109 (2010)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  23. Dastani, M., Hindriks, K.V., Meyer, J.J. (eds.): Specification and verification of multi-agent systems. Springer (2010)

  24. Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif. Intell. 77(2), 321–358 (1995)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  25. Dung, P.M., Toni, F., Mancarella, P.: Some design guidelines for practical argumentation systems. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2010). Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 216, pp. 183–194. IOS Press (2010)

  26. Gabbay, D.M.: Fibring logics. Oxford University Press (1999)

  27. Gabbay, D.M.: Modal provability foundations for argumentation networks. Stud. Log. 93(2–3), 181–198 (2009)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  28. Gabbay, D.M.: Semantics for higher level attacks in extended argumentation frames. Part 1: overview. Stud. Log. 93, 355–379 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Grossi, D.: On the logic of argumentation theory. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2010), pp. 409–416 (2010)

  30. Hemaspaandra, E.: The price of universality. Notre Dame J. Form. Log. 37(2), 174–203 (1996)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  31. Jakobovits, H., Vermeir, D.: Robust semantics for argumentation frameworks. J. Log. Comput. 9(2), 215–261 (1999)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  32. Kaci, S., van der Torre, L., Weydert, E.: On the acceptability of incompatible arguments. In: Proceedings of the 9th European Conference Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty (ECSQARU 2007), pp 247–258 (2007)

  33. Krause, P., Amblerm S., Elvang-Gøransson, M., Fox, J.: A logic of argumentation for reasoning under uncertainty. Comput. Intell. 11, 113–131 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Louie, M.A., Carley, K.M.: Balancing the criticisms: validating multi-agent models of social systems. Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory 16(2), 242–256 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Makinson, D., van der Torre, L.: Input-output logics. J. Philos. Logic 29, 383–408 (2000)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  36. Makinson, D., van der Torre, L.: Constraints for input-output logics. J. Philos. Logic 30(2), 155–185 (2001)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  37. Modgil, S., Bench-Capon, T.: Metalevel argumentation. Tech. rep., www.csc.liv.ac.uk/research/techreports/techreports.html (2009). Accessed 15 Sept 2009

  38. Modgil, S., Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Integrating object and meta-level value based argumentation. In: Proceedings of Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2008). Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 172, pp. 240–251. IOS Press (2008)

  39. Prakken, H.: An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. Argument and Computation 1, 93–124 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Rahwan, I., Simari, G.R. (eds.): Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Springer (2009)

  41. Verheij, B.: Accrual of arguments in defeasible argumentation. In: Proceedings of the 2nd Dutch/German Workshop on Nonmonotonic Reasoning, pp. 217–224 (1995)

  42. Villata, S.: Meta-argumentation for multiagent systems: coalition formation, merging views, subsumption relation and dependence networks. PhD thesis, University of Turin (2010)

  43. Villata, S., Boella, G., Gabbay, D.M.,van der Torre, L.: Arguing about the trustworthiness of the information sources In: Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty (ECSQARU 2011). LNCS, vol. 6717, pp. 74–85 (2011)

  44. Wooldridge, M., McBurney, P., Parsons, S.: On the meta-logic of arguments. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2005), pp. 560–567 (2005)

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. INRIA Sophia Antipolis, 06560, Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France

    Serena Villata

  2. University of Turin, C.so Svizzera 185, Turin, Italy

    Guido Boella

  3. King’s College London, Surrey Street, London, Greater London, WC2R 2LS, UK

    Dov M. Gabbay

  4. University of Luxembourg, 6, rue Richard Coudenhove - Kalergi, 1359, Luxembourg City, Luxembourg

    Leendert van der Torre

  5. Delft University of Technology, Jaffalaan 5, NL-2628 BX, Delft, The Netherlands

    Joris Hulstijn

Authors
  1. Serena Villata
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Guido Boella
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dov M. Gabbay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Leendert van der Torre
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Joris Hulstijn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Serena Villata.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Villata, S., Boella, G., Gabbay, D.M. et al. A logic of argumentation for specification and verification of abstract argumentation frameworks. Ann Math Artif Intell 66, 199–230 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10472-012-9318-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10472-012-9318-6

Keywords

Mathematics Subject Classifications (2010)

Search

Navigation