Balancing Rationality and Utility in Logic-Based Argumentation with Classical Logic Sentences and Belief Contraction

  • Ryuta Arisaka
  • Ken Satoh
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9862)


Compared to abstract argumentation theory which encapsulates the exact nature of arguments, logic-based argumentation is more specific and represents arguments in formal logic. One significant advantage of logic-based argumentation over abstract argumentation is that it can directly benefit from logical properties such as logical consistency, promoting adherence of an argumentation framework to rational principles. On the other hand, a logical argumentation framework based on classical logic has been also reported of its less-than-desirable utility. In this work we show a way of enhancing utility without sacrificing so much of rationality. We propose a rational argumentation framework with just classical logic sentences and a belief contraction operation. Despite its minimalistic appearance, this framework can characterise attack strengths, allowing us to facilitate coalition profitability and formability semantics we previously defined for abstract argumentation.


Formability Semantic Abstract Argumentation Argumentation Framework External Argument Logical Inconsistency 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



We thank reviewers for very helpful comments.


  1. 1.
    Alchourrón, C.E., Gärdenfors, P., Makinson, D.: On the logic of theory change: partial meet contraction and revision functions. J. Symb. logic 50, 510–530 (1985)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Amgoud, L., Besnard, P.: Bridging the gap between abstract argumentation systems and logic. In: Godo, L., Pugliese, A. (eds.) SUM 2009. LNCS, vol. 5785, pp. 12–27. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Arisaka, R., Satoh, K.: Coalition Formability Semantics with Conflict-Eliminable Sets of Arguments. arXiv e-prints:1605.00495 (2016)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Caminada, M., Amgoud, L.: An axiomatic account of formal argumentation. In: AAAI, pp. 608–613 (2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Caminada, M., Amgoud, L.: On the evaluation of argumentation formalisms. Artif. Intell. 171(5–6), 286–310 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Coste-Marquis, S., Devred, C., Marquis, P.: Symmetric argumentation frameworks. In: Godo, L. (ed.) ECSQARU 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3571, pp. 317–328. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Darwiche, A., Pearl, J.: On the logic of iterated belief revision. Artif. Intell. 89, 1–29 (1997)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    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)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fuhrmann, A., Hansson, S.O.: A survey of multiple contractions. Logic Lang. Inf. 3(1), 39–75 (1997)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gabbay, D.M., D’Avila Garcez, A.S.: Logical modes of attack in argumentation networks. Stud. Logica. 93(2), 199–230 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gorogiannis, N., Hunter, A.: Instantiating abstract argumentation with classical logic arguments: postulates and properties. Artif. Intell. 175(9–10), 1479–1497 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kaci, S., van der Torre, L., Weydert, E.: Acyclic argumentation: attack = conflict + preference. In: ECAI, pp. 725–726 (2006)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Katsuno, H., Mendelzon, A.O.: Propositional knowledge base revision and minimal change. Artif. Intell. 52(3), 263–294 (1991)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Prakken, H.: A study of accrual of arguments, with applications to evidential reasoning. In: ICAIL, pp. 85–94 (2005)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: Argument-based extended logic programming with defeasible priorities. J. Appl. Non-class. Logics 7, 25–75 (1997)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Institute of InformaticsTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations