Advertisement

Computing Consensus: A Logic for Reasoning About Deliberative Processes Based on Argumentation

  • Sjur Dyrkolbotn
  • Truls PedersenEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11450)

Abstract

Argumentation theory can encode an agent’s assessment of the state of an exchange of points of view. We present a conservative model of multiple agents potentially disagreeing on the views presented during a process of deliberation. We model this process as iteratively adding points of view (arguments), or aspects of points of view. This gives rise to a modal logic, deliberative dynamic logic, which permits us to reason about the possible developments of the deliberative state. The logic we propose applies to all natural semantics of argumentation theory. Furthermore, under a very weak assumption that the consensus considered by a group of agents is faithful to their individual views, we show that model checking these models is feasible, as long as the argumentation frameworks, which may be infinite, does not have infinite branching.

Keywords

Argumentation theory Multi agent systems Modal logic Dynamic logic Deliberation Consensus 

References

  1. 1.
    Arieli, O., Caminada, M.W.: A QBF-based formalization of abstract argumentation semantics. J. Appl. Log. 11(2), 229–252 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baroni, P., Giacomin, M.: On principle-based evaluation of extension-based argumentation semantics. Artif. Intell. 171(10–15), 675–700 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bodanza, G., Tohmé, F., Auday, M.: Collective argumentation: a survey of aggregation issues around argumentation frameworks. Argument Comput. 8(1), 1–34 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Caminada, M.: On the issue of reinstatement in argumentation. In: Fisher, M., van der Hoek, W., Konev, B., Lisitsa, A. (eds.) JELIA 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4160, pp. 111–123. Springer, Heidelberg (2006).  https://doi.org/10.1007/11853886_11CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Caminada, M., Pigozzi, G., Podlaszewski, M.: Manipulation in group argument evaluation. In: The 10th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, vol. 3, pp. 1127–1128. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (2011)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    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), 321–357 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dyrkolbotn, S., Walicki, M.: Propositional discourse logic. Synthese 191(5), 863–899 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Grossi, D.: Argumentation in the view of modal logic. In: McBurney, P., Rahwan, I., Parsons, S. (eds.) ArgMAS 2010. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 6614, pp. 190–208. Springer, Heidelberg (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21940-5_12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Grossi, D.: On the logic of argumentation theory. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, vol. 1, pp. 409–416. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (2010)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rahwan, I., Simari, G.R.: Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, vol. 47. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sakama, C., Caminada, M., Herzig, A.: A logical account of lying. In: Janhunen, T., Niemelä, I. (eds.) JELIA 2010. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 6341, pp. 286–299. Springer, Heidelberg (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-15675-5_25CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Western Norway University of Applied SciencesBergenNorway
  2. 2.University of BergenBergenNorway

Personalised recommendations