A Dynamic Logic Framework for Abstract Argumentation: Adding and Removing Arguments

Doutre, Sylvie; Maffre, Faustine; McBurney, Peter

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-60045-1_32

Cited by 27 publications

(71 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In this paper we describe several options of looking at an abstract argumentation network (S, R). Since 2009, there were many other papers, which put forward different representations of Abstract Argumentation Networks in terms of well known logics, see for example [32]- [37]. We shall compare and discuss these papers in our Comparison with the Literature Section 9.…”

Section: A Meta-level Object Level Short Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The attack as strong negation, part I

Gabbay

2015

Logic Jnl IGPL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We add strong negation N to classical logic and interpret the attack relation of 'x attacks y' in argumentation as (x → Ny). We write a corresponding object level (using N only) classical theory for each argumentation network and show that the classical models of this theory correspond exactly to the complete extensions of the argumentation network. We show by example how this approach simplifies the study of abstract argumentation networks. We compare with other translations of abstract argumentation networks into logic, such as classical predicate logic or modal logics, or logic programming, and we also compare with Abstract Dialectical Frameworks.

show abstract

Section: A Meta-level Object Level Short Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The attack as strong negation, part I

Gabbay

2015

Logic Jnl IGPL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For instance, several works have incorporated dynamics into abstract argumentation by considering the outcome of an abstract argumentation framework [10,17,21]. Briefly, the outcome of a framework is a description of which arguments should be accepted and those which should now (under some semantics).…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Briefly, the outcome of a framework is a description of which arguments should be accepted and those which should now (under some semantics). The models proposed in [10,21] permit only expansions of (or additions to) a framework and do not include contractions. Postulates for the revision of an argumentation system are presented in in [17], but these conflate revision and contraction; an outcome can describe arguments to be both accepted and not accepted.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Argument Revision

Snaith¹,

Reed²

2016

J Logic Computation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understanding the dynamics of argumentation systems is a crucial component in the development of computational models of argument that are used as representations of belief. To that end, in this article, we introduce a model of Argument Revision, presented in terms of the contraction and revision of a system of structured argumentation. Argument Revision is influenced by theAGM model of belief revision, but with certain key differences. First,Argument Revision involves modifying the underlying model (system of argumentation) from which beliefs are derived, allowing for a finer-grained approach to modifying beliefs. Secondly, the richer structure provided by a system of argumentation permits a determination of minimal change based on quantifiable effects on the system as opposed to qualitative criteria such as entrenchment orderings. Argument Revision does, however, retain a close link to the AGM approach to belief revision. A basic set of postulates for rational revisions and contractions in Argument Revision is proposed; these postulates are influenced by, and capture the spirit of, those found in AGM belief revision. After specifying a determination of minimal change, based on measurable effects on the system, we conclude the article by going on to show how Argument Revision can be used as a strategic tool by a participant in a multi-agent dialogue, assisting with commitment retraction and dishonesty. In systems of argumentation that contain even small knowledge bases, it is difficult for a dialogue participant to fully assess the impact of seemingly trivial changes to that knowledge base, or other parts of the system; we demonstrate, by means of an example, that Argument Revision solves this problem through a determination of minimal change that is justifiable and intuitive.

show abstract

“…Since changing preferences alters how arguments defeat each other, our proposal may resemble existing work on revision of argumentation frameworks [11,13,14,30,38]. These approaches, regardless of their individual goals, end up adding or removing arguments or attacks and returning a new AF or set of AFs as output.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There is plenty of work on revision of argumentation frameworks (AFs) [11,13,14,30,38] which, regardless of their individual goals, end up adding or removing arguments or attacks and returning a new AF or set of AFs as output. Our proposal differs from all those approaches in that the client agent will not just revise its "initial framework" in order to warrant the expert's opinion.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Acquiring knowledge from expert agents in a structured argumentation setting

Agis

Gottifredi

García

2019

AAC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Information-seeking interactions in multi-agent systems are required for situations in which there exists an expert agent that has vast knowledge about some topic, and there are other agents (questioners or clients) that lack and need information regarding that topic. In this work, we propose a strategy for automatic knowledge acquisition in an information-seeking setting in which agents use a structured argumentation formalism for knowledge representation and reasoning. In our approach, the client conceives the other agent as an expert in a particular domain and is committed to believe in the expert's qualified opinion about a given query. The client's goal is to ask questions and acquire knowledge until it is able to conclude the same as the expert about the initial query. On the other hand, the expert's goal is to provide just the necessary information to help the client understand its opinion. Since the client could have previous knowledge in conflict with the information acquired from the expert agent, and given that its goal is to accept the expert's position, the client may need to adapt its previous knowledge. The operational semantics for the client-expert interaction will be defined in terms of a transition system. This semantics will be used to formally prove that, once the client-expert interaction finishes, the client will have the same assessment the expert has about the performed query.

show abstract

A Dynamic Logic Framework for Abstract Argumentation: Adding and Removing Arguments

Cited by 27 publications

References 10 publications

The attack as strong negation, part I

The attack as strong negation, part I

Argument Revision

Acquiring knowledge from expert agents in a structured argumentation setting

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About