Advertisement

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

  • Serena Villata
  • Guido Boella
  • Dov M. Gabbay
  • Leendert van der Torre
  • Joris Hulstijn
Article

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).]

Keywords

Abstract argumentation theory Higher-order argumentation Modelling 

Mathematics Subject Classifications (2010)

68T27 68T30 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Baroni, P., Giacomin, M.: On principle-based evaluation of extension-based argumentation semantics. Artif. Intell. 171(10–15), 675–700 (2007)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baroni, P., Cerutti, F., Giacomin, M., Guida, G.: AFRA: argumentation framework with recursive attacks. Int. J. Approx. Reason. 52(1), 19–37 (2011)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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)Google Scholar
  5. 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. 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)Google Scholar
  7. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bochman, A.: Collective argumentation and disjunctive logic programming. J. Log. Comput. 13, 405–428 (2003)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bochman, A.: A causal approach to nonmonotonic reasoning. Artif. Intell. 160(1–2), 105–143 (2004)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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)Google Scholar
  11. 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)Google Scholar
  12. 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)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Boella, G., Gabbay, D.M., Genovese, V., van der Torre, L.: Fibred security language. Stud. Log. 92(3), 395–436 (2009)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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)Google Scholar
  16. 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)Google Scholar
  17. 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)Google Scholar
  18. 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)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Caminada, M., Amgoud, L.: On the evaluation of argumentation formalisms. Artif. Intell. 171(5–6), 286–310 (2007)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Caminada, M., Gabbay, D.M.: A logical account of formal argumentation. Stud. Log. 93(2–3), 109–145 (2009)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Dastani, M., Hindriks, K.V., Meyer, J.J. (eds.): Specification and verification of multi-agent systems. Springer (2010)Google Scholar
  24. 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)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gabbay, D.M.: Fibring logics. Oxford University Press (1999)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gabbay, D.M.: Modal provability foundations for argumentation networks. Stud. Log. 93(2–3), 181–198 (2009)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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. 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)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hemaspaandra, E.: The price of universality. Notre Dame J. Form. Log. 37(2), 174–203 (1996)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Jakobovits, H., Vermeir, D.: Robust semantics for argumentation frameworks. J. Log. Comput. 9(2), 215–261 (1999)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Krause, P., Amblerm S., Elvang-Gøransson, M., Fox, J.: A logic of argumentation for reasoning under uncertainty. Comput. Intell. 11, 113–131 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Makinson, D., van der Torre, L.: Input-output logics. J. Philos. Logic 29, 383–408 (2000)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Makinson, D., van der Torre, L.: Constraints for input-output logics. J. Philos. Logic 30(2), 155–185 (2001)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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. 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)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Prakken, H.: An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. Argument and Computation 1, 93–124 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Rahwan, I., Simari, G.R. (eds.): Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Springer (2009)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Verheij, B.: Accrual of arguments in defeasible argumentation. In: Proceedings of the 2nd Dutch/German Workshop on Nonmonotonic Reasoning, pp. 217–224 (1995)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Villata, S.: Meta-argumentation for multiagent systems: coalition formation, merging views, subsumption relation and dependence networks. PhD thesis, University of Turin (2010)Google Scholar
  43. 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)Google Scholar
  44. 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)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Serena Villata
    • 1
  • Guido Boella
    • 2
  • Dov M. Gabbay
    • 3
  • Leendert van der Torre
    • 4
  • Joris Hulstijn
    • 5
  1. 1.INRIA Sophia AntipolisSophia Antipolis CedexFrance
  2. 2.University of TurinTurinItaly
  3. 3.King’s College LondonLondonUK
  4. 4.University of LuxembourgLuxembourg CityLuxembourg
  5. 5.Delft University of TechnologyDelftThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations