Advertisement

Argumentation as Exogenous Coordination

  • Leendert van der TorreEmail author
  • Tjitze Rienstra
  • Dov Gabbay
Chapter
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10865)

Abstract

Formal argumentation is one of the most popular approaches in modern logic and reasoning. The theory of abstract argumentation introduced by Dung in 1995 has shifted the focus from the internal structure of arguments to relations among arguments, and temporal dynamics for abstract argumentation was proposed by Barringer, Gabbay and Woods in 2005. In this tradition, we see arguments as reasoning processes, and the interaction among them as a coordination process. We argue that abstract argumentation can adopt ideas and techniques from formal theories of coordination, and as an example we propose a model of sequential abstract argumentation loosely inspired by Reo’s model of exogenous coordination. We show how the argumentation model can represent the temporal dynamics of the liar paradox and predator-prey like behaviour.

References

  1. 1.
    Amgoud, L., Vesic, S.: A formal analyis of the role of argumentation in negotiation dialogues. J. Log. Comput. 5, 957–978 (2012)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arbab, F.: Reo: a channel-based coordination model for component composition. Math. Struct. Comput. Sci. 14(3), 329–366 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Arbab, F.: Abstract behavior types: a foundation model for components and their composition. Sci. Comput. Program. 55(1–3), 3–52 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Arbab, F.: Composition of interacting computations. In: Goldin, D., Smolka, S., Wegner, P. (eds.) Interactive Computation, pp. 277–321. Springer, Heidelberg (2006).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-34874-3_12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Arisaka, R., Satoh, K., van der Torre, L.: Anything you say can be used against you in a court of law. In: AICOL (2018)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Awad, E., Booth, R., Tohmé, F., Rahwan, I.: Judgement aggregation in multi-agent argumentation. J. Log. Comput. 27(1), 227–259 (2017)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Baroni, P., Boella, G., Cerutti, F., Giacomin, M., van der Torre, L., Villata, S.: On the input/output behavior of argumentation frameworks. Artif. Intell. 217, 144–197 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Baroni, P., Gabbay, D., Giacomin, M., van der Torre, L. (eds.): Handbook of Formal Argumentation, vol. 1. College Publications (2018)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Barringer, H., Gabbay, D., Woods, J.: Temporal dynamics of support and attack networks: from argumentation to zoology. In: Hutter, D., Stephan, W. (eds.) Mechanizing Mathematical Reasoning. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2605, pp. 59–98. Springer, Heidelberg (2005).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-32254-2_5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bochman, A.: Explanatory Nonmonotonic Reasoning. World Scientific, Singapore (2005)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bodanza, G.A., Auday, M.R.: Social argument justification: some mechanisms and conditions for their coincidence. In: Sossai, C., Chemello, G. (eds.) ECSQARU 2009. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5590, pp. 95–106. Springer, Heidelberg (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02906-6_10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Caminada, M., Pigozzi, G.: On judgement aggregation in abstract argumentation. Auton. Agent. Multi-Agent Syst. 22(1), 64–102 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Coste-Marquis, S., Devred, C., Konieczny, S.: On the merging of Dung’s argumentation systems. Artif. Intell. 171(10–15), 730–753 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    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)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Giacomin, M.: Handling heterogeneous disagreements through abstract argumentation (extended abstract). In: An, B., Bazzan, A., Leite, J., Villata, S., van der Torre, L. (eds.) PRIMA 2017. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 10621, pp. 3–11. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69131-2_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Governatori, G., Olivieri, F., Rotolo, A., Scannapieco, S., Sartor, G.: Two faces of strategic argumentation in the law. In: JURIX, pp. 81–90 (2014)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Grossi, D., van der Hoek, W.: Audience-based uncertainty in abstract argument games. In: IJCAI, pp. 143–149 (2013)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Liao, B.: Toward incremental computation of argumentation semantics: a decomposition-based approach. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 67(3–4), 319–358 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Liao, B., Jin, L., Koons, R.C.: Dynamics of argumentation systems: a division-based method. Artif. Intell. 175(11), 1790–1814 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Makinson, D., van der Torre, L.: Input/output logics. J. Philos. Log. 29(4), 383–408 (2000)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Makinson, D., van der Torre, L.: Constraints for input/output logics. J. Philos. Log. 30(2), 155–185 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Parsons, S., Sklar, E.: How agents alter their beliefs after an argumentation-based dialogue. In: Parsons, S., Maudet, N., Moraitis, P., Rahwan, I. (eds.) ArgMAS 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4049, pp. 297–312. Springer, Heidelberg (2006).  https://doi.org/10.1007/11794578_19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Procaccia, A., Rosenschein, J.: Extensive-form argumentation games. In: EUMAS, pp. 312–322 (2005)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rahwan, I., Larson, K.: Argumentation and game theory. In: Simari, G., Rahwan, I. (eds.) Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 321–339. Springer, Boston (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-98197-0_16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rahwan, I., Larson, K.: Mechanism design for abstract argumentation. In: AAMAS, pp. 1031–1038 (2008)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rienstra, T., Perotti, A., Villata, S., Gabbay, D.M., van der Torre, L.: Multi-sorted argumentation. In: Modgil, S., Oren, N., Toni, F. (eds.) TAFA 2011. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 7132, pp. 215–231. Springer, Heidelberg (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-29184-5_14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Riveret, R., Prakken, H.: Heuristics in argumentation: a game theory investigation. In: COMMA, pp. 324–335 (2008)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tohmé, F.A., Bodanza, G.A., Simari, G.R.: Aggregation of attack relations: a social-choice theoretical analysis of defeasibility criteria. In: Hartmann, S., Kern-Isberner, G. (eds.) FoIKS 2008. LNCS, vol. 4932, pp. 8–23. Springer, Heidelberg (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-77684-0_4CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Leendert van der Torre
    • 1
    Email author
  • Tjitze Rienstra
    • 2
  • Dov Gabbay
    • 1
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.University of LuxembourgEsch-Sur-AlzetteLuxembourg
  2. 2.Institute for Web Science and TechnologiesUniversity of Koblenz-LandauKoblenzGermany
  3. 3.Department of InformaticsKing’s College LondonLondonUK
  4. 4.Department of Computer ScienceBar Ilan UniversityTel AvivIsrael

Personalised recommendations