Studia Logica

, 93:297 | Cite as

Meta-Argumentation Modelling I: Methodology and Techniques

  • Guido Boella
  • Dov M. Gabbay
  • Leendert van der Torre
  • Serena VillataEmail author


In this paper, we introduce the methodology and techniques of meta-argumentation to model argumentation. The methodology of meta-argumentation instantiates Dung’s abstract argumentation theory with an extended argumentation theory, and is thus based on a combination of the methodology of instantiating abstract arguments, and the methodology of extending Dung’s basic argumentation frameworks with other relations among abstract arguments. The technique of meta-argumentation applies Dung’s theory of abstract argumentation to itself, by instantiating Dung’s abstract arguments with meta-arguments using a technique called flattening. We characterize the domain of instantiation using a representation technique based on soundness and completeness. Finally, we distinguish among various instantiations using the technique of specification languages.


Abstract Argumentation Modelling Reasoning Artificial Intelligence 


  1. 1.
    Amgoud, Leila, ‘An argumentation-based model for reasoning about coalition structures’, in Parsons et al. [43], pp. 217–228.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Amgoud, Leila, and Philippe Besnard, ‘Bridging the gap between abstract argumentation systems and logic’, in L. Godo, and A. Pugliese, (eds.), SUM, vol. 5785 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, 2009, pp. 12–27.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Amgoud Leila, Cayrol Claudette: ‘A reasoning model based on the production of acceptable arguments’. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 34(1-3), 197–215 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Amgoud Leila, Cayrol Claudette, Lagasquie-Schiex Marie-Christine, Livet P.: ‘On bipolarity in argumentation frameworks’. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 23(10), 1062–1093 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Atkinson Katie, Bench-Capon Trevor J.M.: ‘Legal case-based reasoning as practical reasoning’. Artif. Intell. Law 13(1), 93–131 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Baroni, Pietro, Federico Cerutti, Massimiliano Giacomin, and Giovanni Guida, ‘Encompassing attacks to attacks in abstract argumentation frameworks’, in Sossai and Chemello [48], pp. 83–94.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Baroni Pietro, Giacomin Massimiliano: ‘On principle-based evaluation of extension-based argumentation semantics’. Artif. Intell. 171(10-15), 675–700 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Barringer, Howard, Dov M. Gabbay, and John Woods, ‘Temporal dynamics of support and attack networks: From argumentation to zoology’, in D. Hutter, and W. Stephan, (eds.), Mechanizing Mathematical Reasoning, vol. 2605 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, 2005, pp. 59–98.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bench-Capon, Trevor J.M., ‘Specification and implementation of Toulmin dialogue game’, in Legal Knowledge and Information Systems, The Eleventh Annual Conference, JURIX, 1998, pp. 5–20.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bench-Capon, Trevor J. M., ‘Value-based argumentation frameworks’, in S. Benferhat, and E. Giunchiglia, (eds.), Ninth International Workshop on Non- Monotonic Reasoning, NMR, 2002, pp. 443–454.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bench-Capon Trevor J.M.: ‘Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks’. J. Logic and Computation 13(3), 429–448 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bench-Capon Trevor J.M., Dunne Paul E.: ‘Argumentation in artificial intelligence’. Artif. Intell. 171(10-15), 619–641 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bochman Alexander: ‘Collective argumentation and disjunctive logic programming’. J. Log. Comput. 13(3), 405–428 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bochman, Alexander, Explanatory Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Advances in Logic - Vol. 4, World Scientific Publishing, 2005.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Boella, Guido, Joris Hulstijn, and Leendert van der Torre, ‘A logic of abstract argumentation’, in Parsons et al. [43], pp. 29–41.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Boella, Guido, Souhila Kaci, and Leendert van der Torre, ‘Dynamics in argumentation with single extensions: Abstraction principles and the grounded extension’, in Sossai and Chemello [48], pp. 107–118.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Boella, Guido, Souhila Kaci, and Leendert van der Torre, ‘Dynamics in argumentation with single extensions: attack refinement and the grounded extension’, in C. Sierra, C. Castelfranchi, K. S. Decker, and J. Simão Sichman, (eds.), Eighth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, AAMAS 2009, Vol. 2, IFAAMAS, 2009, pp. 1213–1214.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Boella, Guido, Leendert van der Torre, and Serena Villata, ‘Attack relations among dynamic coalitions’, in Twenty Belgian-Netherlands Conference on Artificial Intelligence, BNAIC 2008, 2008, pp. 25–32.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Boella, Guido, Leendert van der Torre, and Serena Villata, ‘Social viewpoints for arguing about coalitions’, in The Duy Bui, Tuong Vinh Ho, and Quang-Thuy Ha, (eds.), PRIMA, vol. 5357 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, 2008, pp. 66–77.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Boella, Guido, Leendert van der Torre, and Serena Villata, ‘Analyzing cooperation in iterative social network design’, Journal of Universal Computer Science, Graz University of Technology and Universiti Malaysia Sarawak Publishers. To appear, 2009.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bondarenko Andrei, Dung Phan Minh, Kowalski Robert A., Toni Francesca: ‘An abstract, argumentation-theoretic approach to default reasoning’. Artif. Intell. 93, 63–101 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Brandt, Felix, and Paul Harrenstein, ‘Characterization of dominance relations in finite coalitional games’, Theory and Decision, Springer Netherlands Publisher. To appear, 2009.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Caminada, Martin, ‘On the issue of reinstatement in argumentation’, in M. Fisher, W. van der Hoek, B. Konev, and A. Lisitsa, (eds.), JELIA, vol. 4160 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, 2006, pp. 111–123.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Caminada Martin, Amgoud Leila: ‘On the evaluation of argumentation formalisms’. Artif. Intell. 171(5-6), 286–310 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cayrol, Claudette, and Marie-Christine Lagasquie-Schiex, ‘On the acceptability of arguments in bipolar argumentation frameworks’, in L. Godo, (ed.), Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty, 8th European Conference, ECSQARU 2005, vol. 3571 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, 2005, pp. 378–389.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Dung Phan Minh: ‘On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games’. Artif. Intell. 77(2), 321–357 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Dung Phan Minh, Mancarella Paolo, Toni Francesca: ‘Computing ideal sceptical argumentation’. Artif. Intell. 171(10-15), 642–674 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Dunne Paul E.: ‘Computational properties of argument systems satisfying graph theoretic constraints’. Artif. Intell. 171(10-15), 701–729 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gabbay, Dov M., ‘Semantics for higher level attacks in extended argumentation frames. part 1: overview’, Studia Logica, 93(2-3): 357–381, 2009, this issue.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Gabbay, Dov M., ‘Fibring argumentation frames’, Studia Logica, 93(2-3): 231–295, 2009, this issue.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Gabbay, Johnson, Ohlbach, andWoods, (eds.), Handbook of the logic of argument and inference: the turn towards the practical, Elsevier Science, 2002.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hansson, Sven Ove, ‘Preference logic’, in D. M. Gabbay, and F. Guenthner, (eds.), Handbook of Philosophical Logic, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2001, pp. 319–387.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Jakobovits Hadassa, Vermeir Dirk: ‘Robust semantics for argumentation frameworks’. J. Log. Comput. 9(2), 215–261 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kaci Souhila, van der Torre Leendert: ‘Preference-based argumentation: Arguments supporting multiple values’. Int. J. Approx. Reasoning 48(3), 730–751 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kaci, Souhila, Leendert W. N. van der Torre, and Emil Weydert, ‘Acyclic argumentation: Attack = conflict + preference’, in G. Brewka, S. Coradeschi, A. Perini, and P. Traverso, (eds.), Seventeenth European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, ECAI 2006, vol. 141 of Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, IOS Press, 2006, pp. 725–726.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kaci, Souhila, Leendert W. N. van der Torre, and Emil Weydert, ‘On the acceptability of incompatible arguments’, in Mellouli [39], pp. 247–258.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kakas, Antonis C., and Pavlos Moraitis, ‘Argumentation based decision making for autonomous agents’, in Second International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, AAMAS 2003, ACM, 2003, pp. 883–890.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Loeckx, J., H.-D. Ehrich, and M. Wolf, ‘Algebraic specification of abstract data types’, in S. Abramsky, D. M. Gabbay, and T. S. E. Maibaum, (eds.), Handbook of Logic and Computer Science, Oxford Science Publications, 2000, pp. 219–309.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Mellouli, Khaled, (ed.), Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty, 9th European Conference, ECSQARU 2007, Hammamet, Tunisia, October 31 - November 2, 2007, Proceedings, vol. 4724 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, 2007.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Modgil, Sanjay, ‘An abstract theory of argumentation that accommodates defeasible reasoning about preferences’, in Mellouli [39], pp. 648–659.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Modgil Sanjay: ‘Reasoning about preferences in argumentation frameworks’. Artif. Intell. 173(9-10), 901–934 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Modgil, Sanjay, and Trevor Bench-Capon, ‘Integrating object and meta-level value based argumentation’, in COMMA, vol. 172, 2008, pp. 240–251.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Parsons, Simon, Nicolas Maudet, Pavlos Moraitis, and Iyad Rahwan, (eds.), Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems, Second International Workshop, ArgMAS 2005, Utrecht, The Netherlands, July 26, 2005, Revised Selected and Invited Papers, vol. 4049 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, 2006.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Prakken, Henry, ‘An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments’, Tech. Rep. UU-CS-2009-019, Department of Information and Computing Sciences, Utrecht University, 2009.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Prakken, Henry, and Giovanni Sartor, ‘A system for defeasible argumentation, with defeasible priorities’, in Artificial Intelligence Today: Recent Trends and Developments. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 1600, Springer, 1999, pp. 365–379.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Prakken, Henry, and G. Vreeswijk, Logics for defeasible argumentation, Handbook of Philosophical Logic, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2002, pp. 219–318.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Savage L.J.: The Foundations of Statistics. Dover Publications, New York (1954)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Sossai, Claudio, and Gaetano Chemello, (eds.), Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty, 10th European Conference, ECSQARU 2009, Verona, Italy, July 1-3, 2009. Proceedings, vol. 5590 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, 2009.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Toulmin, Stephen, The Uses of Argument, Cambridge University Press, 1958.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Verheij Bart: ‘Artificial argument assistants for defeasible argumentation’. Artif. Intell. 150(1-2), 291–324 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Villata, Serena, Meta-argumentation for MAS: coalition formation, merging views, subsumption relations and dependence networks, Ph.D. thesis, University of Turin. To appear, 2010.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Villata, Serena, Guido Boella, and Leendert van der Torre, ‘On the acceptability of meta-arguments’, in The 2009 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Intelligent Agent Technology, IAT 2009, 2009, pp. 259–262.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Wooldridge, Michael, Peter McBurney, and Simon Parsons, ‘On the metalogic of arguments’, in F. Dignum, V. Dignum, S. Koenig, S. Kraus, M. P. Singh, and M. Wooldridge, (eds.), Fourth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, AAMAS 2005, ACM, 2005, pp. 560–567.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Guido Boella
    • 1
  • Dov M. Gabbay
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  • Leendert van der Torre
    • 5
  • Serena Villata
    • 6
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of TurinTorinoItaly
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceKing’s CollegeLondonUK
  3. 3.Bar-Ilan UniversityRamat GanIsrael
  4. 4.University of LuxembourgLuxembourgBelgium
  5. 5.Faculty of Sciences, Technology and CommunicationUniversity of LuxembourgLuxembourgBelgium
  6. 6.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of TurinTorinoItaly

Personalised recommendations