[en] 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.
Disciplines :
Computer science
Author, co-author :
BOOTH, Richard ; University of Luxembourg > Interdisciplinary Centre for Security, Reliability and Trust (SNT)
Kaci, Souhila
RIENSTRA, Tjitze ; University of Luxembourg > Faculty of Science, Technology and Communication (FSTC) > Computer Science and Communications Research Unit (CSC)
VAN DER TORRE, Leon ; University of Luxembourg > Faculty of Science, Technology and Communication (FSTC) > Computer Science and Communications Research Unit (CSC)
External co-authors :
yes
Language :
English
Title :
A logical theory about dynamics in abstract argumentation
Publication date :
2013
Event name :
7th International Conference on Scalable Uncertainty Management (SUM 2013)
Event date :
September 2013
Audience :
International
Main work title :
Scalable Uncertainty Management - 7th International Conference, SUM 2013
scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.
Bibliography
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)
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)
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)
Booth, R., Kaci, S., Rienstra, T., van der Torre, L.: Monotonic and non-monotonic inference for abstract argumentation. In: FLAIRS (2013)
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)
Baroni, P., Caminada, M., Giacomin, M.: An introduction to argumentation semantics. Knowledge Eng. Review 26(4), 365-410 (2011)
Katsuno, H., Mendelzon, A.O.: Propositional knowledge base revision and minimal change. Artificial Intelligence 52(3), 263-294 (1991)
Alchourron, C.E., Gardenfors, P., Makinson, D.: On the logic of theory change: Partial meet contraction and revision functions. Journal of symbolic logic, 510-530 (1985)
Baumann, R.: What does it take to enforce an argument? Minimal change in abstract argumentation. In: Raedt, L.D., Bessiere, 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)
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)
de la Banda, M.G., Pontelli, E. (eds.): ICLP 2008. LNCS, vol. 5366. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)
Egly, U., Gaggl, S.A., Woltran, S.: Answer-set programming encodings for argumentation frameworks. Argument and Computation 1(2), 147-177 (2010)
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)
Liao, B.S., Jin, L., Koons, R.C.: Dynamics of argumentation systems: A divisionbased method. Artif. Intell. 175(11), 1790-1814 (2011)
Roos, N.: Preferential model and argumentation semantics. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning, NMR 2010 (2010)
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)
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)
Grossi, D.: On the logic of argumentation theory. In: van der Hoek, W., Kaminka, G.A., Lesperance, Y., Luck, M., Sen, S. (eds.) AAMAS, pp. 409-416. IFAAMAS (2010)
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)
Besnard, P., Doutre, S.: Checking the acceptability of a set of arguments. In: Delgrande, J.P., Schaub, T. (eds.) NMR, pp. 59-64 (2004)
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)
