Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Meta-Argumentation Modelling I: Methodology and Techniques

  • Published:
Studia Logica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Amgoud, Leila, ‘An argumentation-based model for reasoning about coalition structures’, in Parsons et al. [43], pp. 217–228.

  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.

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Atkinson Katie, Bench-Capon Trevor J.M.: ‘Legal case-based reasoning as practical reasoning’. Artif. Intell. Law 13(1), 93–131 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

  7. Baroni Pietro, Giacomin Massimiliano: ‘On principle-based evaluation of extension-based argumentation semantics’. Artif. Intell. 171(10-15), 675–700 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

  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.

  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.

  11. Bench-Capon Trevor J.M.: ‘Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks’. J. Logic and Computation 13(3), 429–448 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Bench-Capon Trevor J.M., Dunne Paul E.: ‘Argumentation in artificial intelligence’. Artif. Intell. 171(10-15), 619–641 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Bochman Alexander: ‘Collective argumentation and disjunctive logic programming’. J. Log. Comput. 13(3), 405–428 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Bochman, Alexander, Explanatory Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Advances in Logic - Vol. 4, World Scientific Publishing, 2005.

  15. Boella, Guido, Joris Hulstijn, and Leendert van der Torre, ‘A logic of abstract argumentation’, in Parsons et al. [43], pp. 29–41.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Brandt, Felix, and Paul Harrenstein, ‘Characterization of dominance relations in finite coalitional games’, Theory and Decision, Springer Netherlands Publisher. To appear, 2009.

  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.

  24. Caminada Martin, Amgoud Leila: ‘On the evaluation of argumentation formalisms’. Artif. Intell. 171(5-6), 286–310 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Dung Phan Minh, Mancarella Paolo, Toni Francesca: ‘Computing ideal sceptical argumentation’. Artif. Intell. 171(10-15), 642–674 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Dunne Paul E.: ‘Computational properties of argument systems satisfying graph theoretic constraints’. Artif. Intell. 171(10-15), 701–729 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

  30. Gabbay, Dov M., ‘Fibring argumentation frames’, Studia Logica, 93(2-3): 231–295, 2009, this issue.

  31. Gabbay, Johnson, Ohlbach, andWoods, (eds.), Handbook of the logic of argument and inference: the turn towards the practical, Elsevier Science, 2002.

  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.

  33. Jakobovits Hadassa, Vermeir Dirk: ‘Robust semantics for argumentation frameworks’. J. Log. Comput. 9(2), 215–261 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Kaci Souhila, van der Torre Leendert: ‘Preference-based argumentation: Arguments supporting multiple values’. Int. J. Approx. Reasoning 48(3), 730–751 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

  36. Kaci, Souhila, Leendert W. N. van der Torre, and Emil Weydert, ‘On the acceptability of incompatible arguments’, in Mellouli [39], pp. 247–258.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  40. Modgil, Sanjay, ‘An abstract theory of argumentation that accommodates defeasible reasoning about preferences’, in Mellouli [39], pp. 648–659.

  41. Modgil Sanjay: ‘Reasoning about preferences in argumentation frameworks’. Artif. Intell. 173(9-10), 901–934 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Modgil, Sanjay, and Trevor Bench-Capon, ‘Integrating object and meta-level value based argumentation’, in COMMA, vol. 172, 2008, pp. 240–251.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  46. Prakken, Henry, and G. Vreeswijk, Logics for defeasible argumentation, Handbook of Philosophical Logic, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2002, pp. 219–318.

  47. Savage L.J.: The Foundations of Statistics. Dover Publications, New York (1954)

    Google Scholar 

  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.

  49. Toulmin, Stephen, The Uses of Argument, Cambridge University Press, 1958.

  50. Verheij Bart: ‘Artificial argument assistants for defeasible argumentation’. Artif. Intell. 150(1-2), 291–324 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

  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.

  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.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science, University of Turin, Torino, Italy

    Guido Boella

  2. Department of Computer Science, King’s College, London, UK

    Dov M. Gabbay

  3. Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel

    Dov M. Gabbay

  4. University of Luxembourg, Luxembourg, Belgium

    Dov M. Gabbay

  5. Faculty of Sciences, Technology and Communication, University of Luxembourg, L-1359, Luxembourg, Belgium

    Leendert van der Torre

  6. Department of Computer Science, University of Turin, Torino, Italy

    Serena Villata

Authors
  1. Guido Boella
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dov M. Gabbay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Leendert van der Torre
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Serena Villata
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Serena Villata.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Boella, G., Gabbay, D.M., van der Torre, L. et al. Meta-Argumentation Modelling I: Methodology and Techniques. Stud Logica 93, 297 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11225-009-9213-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11225-009-9213-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation