Skip to main content

A Logical Theory about Dynamics in Abstract Argumentation

  • Conference paper

Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNAI,volume 8078)

Abstract

We address dynamics in abstract argumentation using a logical theory where an agent’s belief state consists of an argumentation framework (AF, for short) and a constraint that encodes the outcome the agent believes the AF should have. Dynamics enters in two ways: (1) the constraint is strengthened upon learning that the AF should have a certain outcome and (2) the AF is expanded upon learning about new arguments/attacks. A problem faced in this setting is that a constraint may be inconsistent with the AF’s outcome. We discuss two ways to address this problem: First, it is still possible to form consistent fallback beliefs, i.e., beliefs that are most plausible given the agent’s AF and constraint. Second, we show that it is always possible to find AF expansions to restore consistency. Our work combines various individual approaches in the literature on argumentation dynamics in a general setting.

Keywords

  • Argumentation
  • Dynamics
  • Knowledge Representation

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-40381-1_12
  • Chapter length: 14 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   59.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-3-642-40381-1
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Softcover Book
USD   74.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 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)

    MathSciNet  CrossRef  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Baumann, R., Brewka, G.: Expanding argumentation frameworks: Enforcing and monotonicity results. In: Baroni, P., Cerutti, F., Giacomin, M., Simari, G.R. (eds.) COMMA. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 216, pp. 75–86. IOS Press (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Cayrol, C., de Saint-Cyr, F., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.: Change in abstract argumentation frameworks: Adding an argument. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 38(1), 49–84 (2010)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Booth, R., Kaci, S., Rienstra, T., van der Torre, L.: Monotonic and non-monotonic inference for abstract argumentation. In: FLAIRS (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  5. 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)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  6. Baroni, P., Caminada, M., Giacomin, M.: An introduction to argumentation semantics. Knowledge Eng. Review 26(4), 365–410 (2011)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  7. Katsuno, H., Mendelzon, A.O.: Propositional knowledge base revision and minimal change. Artificial Intelligence 52(3), 263–294 (1991)

    MathSciNet  CrossRef  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Alchourrón, C.E., Gärdenfors, P., Makinson, D.: On the logic of theory change: Partial meet contraction and revision functions. Journal of symbolic logic, 510–530 (1985)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Baumann, R.: What does it take to enforce an argument? Minimal change in abstract argumentation. In: Raedt, L.D., Bessière, C., Dubois, D., Doherty, P., Frasconi, P., Heintz, F., Lucas, P.J.F. (eds.) ECAI. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 242, pp. 127–132. IOS Press (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Toni, F., Sergot, M.: Argumentation and answer set programming. In: Balduccini, M., Son, T.C. (eds.) Gelfond Festschrift. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 6565, pp. 164–180. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  11. de la Banda, M.G., Pontelli, E. (eds.): ICLP 2008. LNCS, vol. 5366. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Egly, U., Gaggl, S.A., Woltran, S.: Answer-set programming encodings for argumentation frameworks. Argument and Computation 1(2), 147–177 (2010)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  13. Gebser, M., Kaufmann, B., Kaminski, R., Ostrowski, M., Schaub, T., Schneider, M.: Potassco: The potsdam answer set solving collection. AI Communications 24(2), 107–124 (2011)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Liao, B.S., Jin, L., Koons, R.C.: Dynamics of argumentation systems: A division-based method. Artif. Intell. 175(11), 1790–1814 (2011)

    MathSciNet  CrossRef  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Roos, N.: Preferential model and argumentation semantics. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning, NMR 2010 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Gratie, C., Florea, A.M.: Argumentation semantics for agents. In: Cossentino, M., Kaisers, M., Tuyls, K., Weiss, G. (eds.) EUMAS 2011. LNCS, vol. 7541, pp. 129–144. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  17. Boella, G., Gabbay, D.M., Perotti, A., van der Torre, L., Villata, S.: Conditional labelling for abstract argumentation. In: Modgil, S., Oren, N., Toni, F. (eds.) TAFA 2011. LNCS, vol. 7132, pp. 232–248. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  18. Grossi, D.: On the logic of argumentation theory. In: van der Hoek, W., Kaminka, G.A., Lespérance, Y., Luck, M., Sen, S. (eds.) AAMAS, pp. 409–416. IFAAMAS (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Schwarzentruber, F., Vesic, S., Rienstra, T.: Building an epistemic logic for argumentation. In: del Cerro, L.F., Herzig, A., Mengin, J. (eds.) JELIA 2012. LNCS, vol. 7519, pp. 359–371. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  20. Besnard, P., Doutre, S.: Checking the acceptability of a set of arguments. In: Delgrande, J.P., Schaub, T. (eds.) NMR, pp. 59–64 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Boella, G., Hulstijn, J., van der Torre, L.W.N.: A logic of abstract argumentation. In: Parsons, S., Maudet, N., Moraitis, P., Rahwan, I. (eds.) ArgMAS 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4049, pp. 29–41. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  22. Coste-Marquis, S., Devred, C., Marquis, P.: Constrained argumentation frameworks. In: Doherty, P., Mylopoulos, J., Welty, C.A. (eds.) KR, pp. 112–122. AAAI Press (2006)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Booth, R., Kaci, S., Rienstra, T., van der Torre, L. (2013). A Logical Theory about Dynamics in Abstract Argumentation. In: Liu, W., Subrahmanian, V.S., Wijsen, J. (eds) Scalable Uncertainty Management. SUM 2013. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 8078. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40381-1_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40381-1_12

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-40380-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-40381-1

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)