Knowledge Representation and Reasoning; Metamodel for Argumentation; Methodology of Argumentation; Hybrid Artificial Intelligence
Abstract :
[en] In this paper, we introduce A-BDI, the first metamodel for formal and computational argumentation. It contains three models, conceptualizing argumentation as balancing, argumentation as dialogue, and argumentation as inference respectively. Each model looks at argumentation from a different perspective, addressing its own concerns and using its own formal and computational methods. Whereas balancing is inspired by the scale metaphor and uses quantitative techniques typically found in theories in economics and neural computing, dialogue is developed in multiagent communication and interaction and uses chatbot and Large Language Models (LLMs) technology, and inference is derived from theoretical investigations in knowledge representation and reasoning and uses techniques from symbolic reasoning. By bringing together new and traditional Artificial Intelligence (AI) approaches, the A-BDI metamodel provides a formal and computational framework for human-level, neuro-symbolic, and hybrid AI.
Disciplines :
Computer science
Author, co-author :
YU, Liuwen ; University of Luxembourg > Faculty of Science, Technology and Medicine > Department of Computer Science > Team Réka MARKOVICH
van der Torre, Leendert ; University of Luxembourg, Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg ; Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China
External co-authors :
no
Language :
English
Title :
The A-BDI Metamodel for Human-Level AI: Argumentation as Balancing, Dialogue and Inference
Publication date :
11 June 2025
Event name :
6th International Conference on Logic and Argumentation
Event place :
Taiyuan, Chn
Event date :
14-06-2025 => 16-06-2025
Main work title :
Logic and Argumentation - 6th International Conference, CLAR 2025, Proceedings
Editor :
Ågotnes, Thomas
Publisher :
Springer Science and Business Media Deutschland GmbH
Alcaraz, B., Knoks, A., Streit, D.: Estimating weights of reasons using metaheuris-tics: a hybrid approach to machine ethics. In: Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, vol. 7, pp. 27–38 (2024)
Amgoud, L., Ben-Naim, J.: Ranking-based semantics for argumentation frameworks. In: Liu, W., Subrahmanian, V.S., Wijsen, J. (eds.) SUM 2013. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 8078, pp. 134–147. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). https://doi.org/10. 1007/978-3-642-40381-1 11
Amgoud, L., Doder, D., Vesic, S.: Evaluation of argument strength in attack graphs: foundations and semantics. Artif. Intell. 302, 103607 (2022)
Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T.: Value-based argumentation. In: Handbook of Formal Argumentation, Volume 2, pp. 397–441 (2021)
Austin, J.L.: How to Do Things With Words. Harvard University Press (1975)
Baroni, P., Gabbay, D., Giacomin, M., van der Torre, L. (eds.): Handbook of Formal Argumentation, vol. 1. College Publications (2018)
Benzmüller, C., Parent, X., van der Torre, L.: Designing normative theories for ethical and legal reasoning: LogiKEy framework, methodology, and tool support. Artif. Intell. 287, 103348 (2020)
Bistarelli, S., Santini, F., et al.: Weighted argumentation. In: Handbook of Formal Argumentation, Volume 2 (2021)
Black, E., Maudet, N., Parsons, S.: Argumentation-based dialogue. In: Handbook of Formal Argumentation, Volume 2 (2021)
Cayrol, C., Cohen, A., Lagasquie Schiex, M.C.: Higher-order interactions (bipolar or not) in abstract argumentation: a state of the art (2021)
Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.C.: On the acceptability of arguments in bipolar argumentation frameworks. In: Godo, L. (ed.) ECSQARU 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3571, pp. 378–389. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/11518655 33
Coleman, J.S.: Micro foundations and macrosocial behavior. Angewandte Sozial-forschung anc AIAS Informationen Wien 12(1–2), 25–37 (1984)
Dancy, J.: Ethics without principles (2004)
Drai, D.: Reasons have no weight. Philos. Q. 68(270), 60–76 (2018)
Gabbay, D., Giacomin, M., Simari, G., Thimm, M. (eds.): Handbook of Formal Argumentation, vol. 2. College Publications (2021)
Georgeff, M., Pell, B., Pollack, M., Tambe, M., Wooldridge, M.: The belief-desire-intention model of agency. In: Müller, J.P., Rao, A.S., Singh, M.P. (eds.) ATAL 1998. LNCS, vol. 1555, pp. 1–10. Springer, Heidelberg (1999). https://doi.org/10. 1007/3-540-49057-4 1
van Gijzel, B., Prakken, H.: Relating Carneades with abstract argumentation via the ASPIC+ framework for structured argumentation. Argument Comput. 3(1), 21–47 (2012)
Gordon, T.F.: Towards requirements analysis for formal argumentation. Handbook Formal Argumentation 1, 145–156 (2018)
Gordon, T.F., Prakken, H., Walton, D.: The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof. Artif. Intell. 171(10–15), 875–896 (2007)
Hakim, F.Z.M., Indrayani, L.M., Amalia, R.M.: A dialogic analysis of compliment strategies employed by Replika chatbot. In: Third International conference of arts, language and culture (ICALC 2018), pp. 266–271. Atlantis Press (2019)
Liao, B., Pardo, P., Slavkovik, M., van der Torre, L.: The jiminy advisor: moral agreements among stakeholders based on norms and argumentation. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 77, 737–792 (2023)
Liga, D., Markovich, R., Yu, L.: Addressing the right to explanation and the right to challenge through hybrid-AI: symbolic constraints over large language models via prompt engineering (2025). submitted to ICAIL 2025
McBurney, P., Parsons, S.: Locutions for argumentation in agent interaction protocols. In: van Eijk, R.M., Huget, M.-P., Dignum, F. (eds.) AC 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3396, pp. 209–225. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-32258-0 14
McBurney, P., Parsons, S., et al.: Argument schemes and dialogue protocols: Doug Walton’s legacy in artificial intelligence. FLAP 8(1), 263–290 (2021)
Modgil, S.: Towards a general framework for dialogues that accommodate reasoning about preferences. In: Black, E., Modgil, S., Oren, N. (eds.) TAFA 2017. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 10757, pp. 175–191. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75553-3 13
Pilone, D., Pitman, N.: UML 2.0 in a Nutshell. O’Reilly Media, Inc. (2005)
Pollock, J.L.: How to reason defeasibly. Artif. Intell. 57(1), 1–42 (1992)
Pollock, J.L.: Justification and defeat. Artif. Intell. 67(2), 377–407 (1994)
Pollock, J.L.: Cognitive Carpentry: A Blueprint for How to Build a Person. MIT Press (1995)
Pollock, J.L.: Defeasible reasoning with variable degrees of justification. Artif. Intell. 133(1–2), 233–282 (2001)
Pollock, J.L.: A recursive semantics for defeasible reasoning. In: Simari, G., Rahwan, I. (eds.) Argumentation in artificial intelligence, pp. 173–197. Springer, Boston (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-98197-0 9
Pollock, J.L.: Defeasible reasoning and degrees of justification. Argument Comput. 1(1), 7–22 (2010)
Prakken, H.: Historical overview of formal argumentation. In: Handbook of Formal Argumentation, pp. 73–141. College Publications (2018)
Raiffa, H.: Decision Analysis: Introductory Lectures on Choices Under Uncertainty. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1968)
Searle, J.R.: Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge University Press (1979)
Streit, D.: From metaethics to machine decisions: formal models of normative reasons and their application in philosophy and machine ethics. Doctoral thesis, Uni-versité du Luxembourg (2024)
Sure, Y., Staab, S., Studer, R.: On-to-knowledge methodology (OTKM). Handbook on Ontologies, pp. 117–132 (2004)
The open group: ArchiMate forum. https://www.opengroup.org/archimate-forum (2025). Accessed 21 Jan 2025
Thieyre, J., Beynier, A., Maudet, N., Vesic, S.: Reassessing the impact of reading behaviour in online debates under the lens of gradual semantics. In: Fifth International Workshop on Systems and Algorithms for Formal Argumentation (SAFA-24), vol. 3757, pp. 119–133 (2024)
Traum, D.R.: Speech acts for dialogue agents. In: Foundations of rational agency, pp. 169–201. Springer (1999). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9204-8 8
Tucker, C.: The Weight of Reasons: A Framework for Ethics. Oxford University Press, New York (forthcoming)
Tucker, C.: The Weight of Reasons: A Framework for Ethics (2024)
Waldner, J.B.: Principles of Computer-Integrated Manufacturing. Wiley (1992)
Walton, D., Krabbe, E.C.: Commitment in dialogue: basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. State University of New York Press (1995)
Yu, L., Al Anaissy, C., Vesic, S., Li, X., van der Torre, L.: A principle-based analysis of bipolar argumentation semantics. In: Gaggl, S., Martinez, M.V., Ortiz, M. (eds.) European Conference on Logics in Artificial Intelligence, vol. 14281, pp. 209–224. Springer, Cham (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-43619-2 15
Yu, L., Chen, D., Qiao, L., Shen, Y., van der Torre, L.: A Principle-based Analysis of Abstract Agent Argumentation Semantics. In: Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pp. 629–639 (11 2021). https://doi.org/10.24963/kr.2021/60
Yu, L., Markovich, R., Van Der Torre, L.: Interpretations of support among arguments. In: Legal Knowledge and Information Systems, pp. 194–203. IOS Press (2020)
Yu, L., van der Torre, L., Markovich, R.: Thirteen challenges in formal and computational argumentation. In: Gabbay, D., Kern-Isberner, G., Simari, G.R., Thimm, M. (eds.) Handbook of Formal Argumentation, Volume 3, pp. 890–976. College Publications (2024)
