×

Argumentation update in YALLA (yet another logic language for argumentation). (English) Zbl 1356.68216

Summary: This article proposes a complete framework for handling the dynamics of an abstract argumentation system. This frame can encompass several belief bases under the form of several argumentation systems, more precisely it is possible to express and study how an agent who has her own argumentation system can interact on a target argumentation system (that may represent a state of knowledge at a given stage of a debate). The two argumentation systems are defined inside a reference argumentation system called the universe which constitutes a kind of “common language”. This paper establishes three main results. First, we show that change in argumentation in such a framework can be seen as a particular case of belief update. Second, we have introduced a new logical language called YALLA in which the structure of an argumentation system can be encoded, enabling to express all the basic notions of argumentation theory (defense, conflict-freeness, extensions) by formulae of YALLA. Third, due to previous works about dynamics in argumentation we have been in position to provide a set of new properties that are specific for argumentation update.

MSC:

68T27 Logic in artificial intelligence
PDFBibTeX XMLCite
Full Text: DOI

References:

[1] Alchourrón, C.; Gärdenfors, P.; Makinson, D., On the logic of theory change: partial meet contraction and revision functions, J. Symb. Log., 50, 510-530 (1985) · Zbl 0578.03011
[2] Amgoud, L.; Cayrol, C., Inferring from inconsistency in preference-based argumentation frameworks, Int. J. Autom. Reason., 29, 2, 125-169 (2002) · Zbl 1056.68589
[3] Amgoud, L.; Dupin de Saint-Cyr Bannay, F., Extracting the core of a persuasion dialog to evaluate its quality, (Sossai, C.; Chemello, G., European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty. European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty, (ECSQARU), Vérone, Italie, 01/07/2009-03/07/2009. European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty. European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty, (ECSQARU), Vérone, Italie, 01/07/2009-03/07/2009, LNAI, vol. 5590 (2009), Springer-Verlag), 59-70 · Zbl 1245.68179
[4] Amgoud, L.; Prade, H., Using arguments for making and explaining decisions, Artif. Intell., 173, 3-4, 413-436 (2009) · Zbl 1343.68219
[5] Baroni, P.; Boella, G.; Cerutti, F.; Giacomin, M.; van der Torre, L. W.N.; Villata, S., On the input/output behavior of argumentation frameworks, Artif. Intell., 217, 144-197 (2014) · Zbl 1408.68134
[6] Baroni, P.; Giacomin, M.; Liao, B., On topology-related properties of abstract argumentation semantics. A correction and extension to dynamics of argumentation systems: a division-based method, Artif. Intell., 212, 104-115 (2014) · Zbl 1405.68337
[7] Baumann, R., What does it take to enforce an argument? Minimal change in abstract argumentation, (Raedt, L. D.; Bessière, C.; Dubois, D.; Doherty, P.; Frasconi, P.; Heintz, F.; Lucas, P. J.F., 20th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 20th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, ECAI 2012. 20th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 20th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, ECAI 2012, Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 242 (2012), IOS Press), 127-132 · Zbl 1327.68266
[8] Baumann, R.; Brewka, G., Expanding argumentation frameworks: enforcing and monotonicity results, (Proceeding of the 2010 Conference on Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2010 (2010), IOS Press: IOS Press Amsterdam, the Netherlands), 75-86
[9] Bench-Capon, T. J.M., Try to see it my way: modelling persuasion in legal discourse, Artif. Intell. Law, 11, 271-287 (2003)
[10] Besnard, P.; Doutre, S., Checking the acceptability of a set of arguments, (Delgrande, J. P.; Schaub, T., Proceedings of 10th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning. Proceedings of 10th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning, NMR 2004, Whistler, Canada, June 6-8 (2004)), 59-64
[11] Besnard, P.; Hunter, A., A logic-based theory of deductive arguments, Artif. Intell., 128, 1-2, 203-235 (2001) · Zbl 0971.68143
[12] Bisquert, P.; Cayrol, C.; Dupin de Saint-Cyr Bannay, F.; Lagasquie-Schiex, M.-C., Change in argumentation systems: exploring the interest of removing an argument (regular paper), (Benferhat, S.; Grant, J., International Conference on Scalable Uncertainty Management. International Conference on Scalable Uncertainty Management, SUM, Dayton, Ohio, 10/10/2011-12/10/2011 (2011), Springer-Verlag), 275-288
[13] Bisquert, P.; Cayrol, C.; Dupin de Saint-Cyr Bannay, F.; Lagasquie-Schiex, M.-C., Duality between addition and removal, (Greco, S.; Bouchon-Meunier, B.; Coletti, G.; Fedrizzi, M.; Matarazzo, B.; Yager, R. R., Advances on Computational Intelligence. Advances on Computational Intelligence, Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol. 297 (2012), Springer), 219-229 · Zbl 1252.68296
[14] Bisquert, P.; Cayrol, C.; Dupin de Saint-Cyr Bannay, F.; Lagasquie-Schiex, M.-C., Characterizing change in abstract argumentation systems, (Fermé, E.; Gabbay, D.; Simari, G., Trends in Belief Revision and Argumentation Dynamics. Trends in Belief Revision and Argumentation Dynamics, Studies in Logic, vol. 48 (2013), College Publications), 75-102 · Zbl 1286.68410
[15] Bisquert, P.; Cayrol, C.; Dupin de Saint-Cyr Bannay, F.; Lagasquie-Schiex, M.-C., Enforcement in argumentation is a kind of update (regular paper), (Liu, W.; Subrahmanian, V.; Wijsen, J., International Conference on Scalable Uncertainty Management. International Conference on Scalable Uncertainty Management, SUM, Washington DC, USA, 16/09/2013-18/09/2013. International Conference on Scalable Uncertainty Management. International Conference on Scalable Uncertainty Management, SUM, Washington DC, USA, 16/09/2013-18/09/2013, LNAI, vol. 8078 (2013), Springer-Verlag), 30-43
[16] Bisquert, P.; Cayrol, C.; Dupin de Saint-Cyr Bannay, F.; Lagasquie-Schiex, M.-C., Goal-driven changes in argumentation: a theoretical framework and a tool (regular paper), (International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence. International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence, ICTAI, Washington, USA, 04/11/2013-06/11/2013 (2013)), 588-595, IEEExplore digital library
[17] Boella, G.; Kaci, S.; van der Torre, L., Dynamics in argumentation with single extensions: abstraction principles and the grounded extension, (Sossai, C.; Chemello, G., 10th European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty. 10th European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty, ECSQARU 2009. 10th European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty. 10th European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty, ECSQARU 2009, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5590 (2009), Springer), 107-118 · Zbl 1245.91015
[18] Boella, G.; Kaci, S.; van der Torre, L., Dynamics in argumentation with single extensions: attack refinement and the grounded extension, (Sierra, C.; Castelfranchi, C.; Decker, K. S.; Sichman, J. S., 8th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems. 8th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, AAMAS 2009 (2009), IFAAMAS), 1213-1214
[19] Bonet, B.; Geffner, H., Arguing for decisions: a qualitative model of decision making, (Horvitz, E.; Jensen, F. V., Proceedings of the 12th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (1996), Morgan Kaufmann), 98-105
[20] Bonzon, E.; Maudet, N., On the outcomes of multiparty persuasion, (Proceedings of the 10th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems. Proceedings of the 10th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, AAMAS’11 (2011)), 47-54
[21] Booth, R.; Kaci, S.; Rienstra, T.; Torre, L., A logical theory about dynamics in abstract argumentation, (Liu, W.; Subrahmanian, V.; Wijsen, J., Scalable Uncertainty Management. Scalable Uncertainty Management, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 8078 (2013), Springer: Springer Berlin, Heidelberg), 148-161
[22] Cayrol, C.; Dupin de Saint-Cyr Bannay, F.; Lagasquie-Schiex, M.-C., Change in abstract argumentation frameworks: adding an argument, J. Artif. Intell. Res., 38, 49-84 (2010) · Zbl 1191.68480
[23] Cordier, M.-O.; Siegel, P., Prioritized transitions for updates, (ECSQARU (1995)), 142-150
[24] Coste-Marquis, S.; Devred, C.; Marquis, P., Constrained argumentation frameworks, (Proc. of KR. Lake District (2006)), 112-122
[25] Coste-Marquis, S.; Konieczny, S.; Mailly, J.-G.; Marquis, P., On the revision of argumentation systems: minimal change of argument statuses, (Baral, C.; De Giacomo, G., International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR) (2014), AAAI Press)
[26] Coste-Marquis, S.; Konieczny, S.; Mailly, J.-G.; Marquis, P., A translation-based approach for revision of argumentation frameworks, (Logics in Artificial Intelligence (2014), Springer), 397-411 · Zbl 1432.68435
[27] Coste-Marquis, S.; Konieczny, S.; Mailly, J.-G.; Marquis, P., Extension enforcement in abstract argumentation as an optimization problem, (International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI (2015)), 2876-2882
[28] Diller, M.; Haret, A.; Linsbichler, T.; Rümmele, S.; Woltran, S., An extension-based approach to belief revision in abstract argumentation, (Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2015 (2015)), 2926-2932
[29] Doutre, S.; Herzig, A.; Perrussel, L., A dynamic logic framework for abstract argumentation, (Baral, C.; De Giacomo, G., International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR) (2014), AAAI Press), 62-71
[30] Dubois, D.; Dupin de Saint-Cyr Bannay, F.; Prade, H., Update postulates without inertia (regular paper), (Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning and Uncertainty (Selected Papers of the Europ. Conf. ECSQARU’95). Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning and Uncertainty (Selected Papers of the Europ. Conf. ECSQARU’95), Fribourg, Switzerland. Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning and Uncertainty (Selected Papers of the Europ. Conf. ECSQARU’95). Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning and Uncertainty (Selected Papers of the Europ. Conf. ECSQARU’95), Fribourg, Switzerland, LNAI, vol. 946 (1995), Springer-Verlag), 162-170
[31] 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) · Zbl 1013.68556
[32] Fox, J.; McBurney, P., Decision making by intelligent agents: logical argument, probabilistic inference and the maintenance of beliefs and acts, (Benferhat, S.; Giunchiglia, E., Proceedings of 9th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning. Proceedings of 9th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning, NMR 2002, April 19-21, Toulouse, France (2002)), 293-301
[33] Ghallab, M.; Nau, D.; Traverso, P., Automated Planning: Theory and Practice (2004), Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Elsevier · Zbl 1074.68613
[34] Grossi, D.; van der Hoek, W., Audience-based uncertainty in abstract argument games, (IJCAI 2013, Proceedings of the 23rd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. IJCAI 2013, Proceedings of the 23rd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Beijing, China, August 3-9 (2013))
[35] Hadjinikolis, C.; Modgil, S.; Black, E.; McBurney, P.; Siantos, Y., Opponent modelling in persuasion dialogues, (Proceedings of the Twenty-Third International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Proceedings of the Twenty-Third International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2013 (2013)), 164-170
[36] Herzig, A., On updates with integrity constraints, (Belief Change in Rational Agents (2005))
[37] Herzig, A.; Rifi, O., Propositional belief base update and minimal change, Artif. Intell., 115, 107-138 (1999) · Zbl 0939.68852
[38] Karacapilidis, N.; Papadias, D., Computer supported argumentation and collaborative decision making: the HERMES system, Inf. Syst., 26, 4, 259-277 (2001) · Zbl 0990.68603
[39] Katsuno, H.; Mendelzon, A., On the difference between updating a knowledge base and revising it, (Allen, J.; etal., Proc. of the 2nd Inter. Conf. on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. Proc. of the 2nd Inter. Conf. on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, Cambridge, MA (1991)), 387-394 · Zbl 0765.68197
[40] Katsuno, H.; Mendelzon, A., Propositional knowledge base revision and minimal change, Artif. Intell., 52, 263-294 (1991) · Zbl 0792.68182
[41] Kleene, S. C., Mathematical Logic (1967), John Wiley & Sons · Zbl 0149.24309
[42] Sombé, Léa, A glance at revision and updating in knowledge bases, Int. J. Intell. Syst., 9, 1, 1-27 (1994) · Zbl 0805.68119
[43] Liao, B.; Jin, L.; Koons, R. C., Dynamics of argumentation systems: a division-based method, Artif. Intell., 175, 11, 1790-1814 (2011) · Zbl 1226.68101
[44] Moguillansky, M. O.; Rotstein, N. D.; Falappa, M. A.; García, A. J.; Simari, G. R., Argument theory change through defeater activation, (Proceeding of the 2010 Conference on Computational Models of Argument. Proceeding of the 2010 Conference on Computational Models of Argument, COMMA 2010 (2010), IOS Press: IOS Press Amsterdam, the Netherlands), 359-366
[45] Oikarinen, E.; Woltran, S., Characterizing strong equivalence for argumentation frameworks, Artif. Intell., 175, 14-15, 1985-2009 (2011) · Zbl 1252.68279
[46] Oren, N.; Atkinson, K.; Li, H., Group persuasion through uncertain audience modelling, (Computational Models of Argument - Proceedings of COMMA 2012. Computational Models of Argument - Proceedings of COMMA 2012, Vienna, Austria, September 10-12 (2012)), 350-357
[47] Oren, N.; Norman, T. J., Arguing using opponent models, (Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems, 6th International Workshop. Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems, 6th International Workshop, ArgMAS 2009, Budapest, Hungary, May 12 (2009)), 160-174, Revised selected and invited papers
[48] Prakken, H., Formal systems for persuasion dialogue, Knowl. Eng. Rev., 21, 2, 163-188 (2006)
[49] Rienstra, T.; Thimm, M.; Oren, N., Opponent models with uncertainty for strategic argumentation, (IJCAI 2013, Proceedings of the 23rd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. IJCAI 2013, Proceedings of the 23rd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Beijing, China, August 3-9 (2013))
[50] Rotstein, N. D.; Moguillansky, M. O.; Falappa, M. A.; García, A. J.; Simari, G. R., Argument theory change: revision upon warrant, (Proceedings of the 2008 Conference on Computational Models of Argument. Proceedings of the 2008 Conference on Computational Models of Argument, COMMA 2008 (2008), IOS Press: IOS Press Amsterdam, the Netherlands), 336-347
[51] Stoll, R. R., Sets, Logic and Axiomatic Theories (1975), W.H. Freeman & Co Ltd. · Zbl 0292.02002
[52] Thimm, M.; García, A. J., Classification and strategical issues of argumentation games on structured argumentation frameworks, (9th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems. 9th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, AAMAS 2010, Toronto, Canada, May 10-14, 2010, vol. 1-3 (2010)), 1247-1254
[53] van Ditmarsch, H. P.; Herzig, A.; Lima, T. D., Public announcements, public assignments and the complexity of their logic, J. Appl. Non-Class. Log., 22, 3, 249-273 (2012) · Zbl 1398.03076
[54] Villata, S.; Boella, G.; Gabbay, D. M.; van der Torre, L.; Hulstijn, J., A logic of argumentation for specification and verification of abstract argumentation frameworks, Ann. Math. Artif. Intell., 66, 1-4, 199-230 (2012) · Zbl 1272.68383
[55] Walton, D.; Krabbe, E., Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning, SUNY Series in Logic and Language (1995), State University of New York Press
[56] Winslett, M., Reasoning about action using a possible models approach, (Proc. of the 7th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Proc. of the 7th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, St. Paul (1988)), 89-93
[57] Winslett, M., Updating Logical Databases (1990), Cambridge University Press: Cambridge University Press Cambridge, UK · Zbl 0728.68053
[58] Wooldridge, M.; McBurney, P.; Parsons, S., On the meta-logic of arguments, (4th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems. 4th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, AAMAS 2005, July 25-29, 2005, Utrecht, the Netherlands (2005), ACM), 560-567
[59] Zhuang, Z., Argument rejection and acceptance through attack abstractions, (Séminaire “Belief Change and Argumentation in Multi-Agent Scenarios” (2013), Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz Center for Informatics: Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz Center for Informatics Dagstuhl, Allemagne)
This reference list is based on information provided by the publisher or from digital mathematics libraries. Its items are heuristically matched to zbMATH identifiers and may contain data conversion errors. In some cases that data have been complemented/enhanced by data from zbMATH Open. This attempts to reflect the references listed in the original paper as accurately as possible without claiming completeness or a perfect matching.