A logic of argumentation for specification and verification of abstract argumentation frameworks

Villata, Serena; Boella, Guido; Gabbay, Dov M.; Torre, Leendert van der; Hulstijn, Joris

doi:10.1007/s10472-012-9318-6

Cited by 4 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As an aside, a distinctive feature of YALLA is that a reference universe of argumentation is assumed, which makes it possible to capture cases of incomplete knowledge. The second approach reported in the same section proposes a propositional logic to specify and to check requirements in argumentation graphs [93]. The input consists of an argumentation graph together with constraints (such as: argument a or argument b is acceptable) and the outputs are formulae encoding the graph and the constraints, so that the models of the formulae capture properties of the argumentation graph.…”

Section: P Besnard Et Al / Logical Theories and Abstract Argumentatmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Section 10 reviews three methods for expressing abstract argumentation in modal logic [25,70,93], two of them taking as input an argumentation graph together with a labelling (the third method regards argumentative semantics as primitives of the language) while the output consists of modal formulae expressing the distinctive properties of a given argumentative semantics.…”

Section: P Besnard Et Al / Logical Theories and Abstract Argumentatmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In [93] is proposed a propositional logic of argumentation to specify and verify requirements in AFs. Note that a modal variant of this logic has been proposed (see Section 10).…”

Section: The Approach By Villata Et Almentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The purpose of the work reported in [93] is to define a logic for specifying and verifying requirements for AFs. A propositional variant has been presented in Section 6.…”

Section: The Modal Setting Of Villata Et Almentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The main difference with the modal approaches of [25] and [70] is that these works describe semantics in the modal language, whereas [93] considers semantics as primitives of the language.…”

Section: The Modal Setting Of Villata Et Almentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Logical theories and abstract argumentation: A survey of existing works

Besnard

Cayrol

Lagasquie-Schiex

2020

AAC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 1995, in his seminal paper introducing the abstract argumentation framework, Dung has also established the first relationship between this framework and a logical framework (in this case: logic programming). Since that time, a lot of work have pursued this path, proposing different definitions, uses and exhibiting distinct relationships between argumentation and logic. In this paper, we present a survey of existing works about this topic and more especially those that address the following question: "How logic has been used for capturing various aspects or parts of Dung's argumentation". This survey covers many different approaches but is not intended to be totally exhaustive due to the huge quantity of papers in this scope. Moreover, due to the fact that each approach has its own specificities, sometimes antagonistic with the other approaches, and is also justified by its own context of definition or use, the aim of this survey is not to identify one approach as being better than another.

show abstract

Section: P Besnard Et Al / Logical Theories and Abstract Argumentatmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: P Besnard Et Al / Logical Theories and Abstract Argumentatmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In [93] is proposed a propositional logic of argumentation to specify and verify requirements in AFs. Note that a modal variant of this logic has been proposed (see Section 10).…”

Section: The Approach By Villata Et Almentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The purpose of the work reported in [93] is to define a logic for specifying and verifying requirements for AFs. A propositional variant has been presented in Section 6.…”

Section: The Modal Setting Of Villata Et Almentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Modal Setting Of Villata Et Almentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Logical theories and abstract argumentation: A survey of existing works

Besnard

Cayrol

Lagasquie-Schiex

2020

AAC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Argumentation update in YALLA (Yet Another Logic Language for Argumentation)

Saint-Cyr¹,

Bisquert²,

Cayrol³

et al. 2016

International Journal of Approximate Reasoning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

International audienceThis 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

show abstract

Optimization of dialectical outcomes in dialogical argumentation

Hunter

Thimm

2016

International Journal of Approximate Reasoning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When informal arguments are presented, there may be imprecision in the language used, and so the audience may be uncertain as to the structure of the argument graph as intended by the presenter of the arguments. For a presenter of arguments, it is useful to know the audience's argument graph, but the presenter may be uncertain as to the structure of it. To model the uncertainty as to the structure of the argument graph in situations such as these, we can use probabilistic argument graphs. The set of subgraphs of an argument graph is a sample space. A probability value is assigned to each subgraph such that the sum is 1, thereby reflecting the uncertainty over which is the actual subgraph. We can then determine the probability that a particular set of arguments is included or excluded from an extension according to a particular Dung semantics. We represent and reason with extensions from a graph and from its subgraphs, using a logic of dialectical outcomes that we present. We harness this to define the notion of an argumentation lottery, which can be used by the audience to determine the expected utility of a debate, and can be used by the presenter to decide which arguments to present by choosing those that maximize expected utility. We investigate some of the options for using argumentation lotteries, and provide a computational evaluation.

show abstract

A logic of argumentation for specification and verification of abstract argumentation frameworks

Cited by 4 publications

References 36 publications

Logical theories and abstract argumentation: A survey of existing works

Logical theories and abstract argumentation: A survey of existing works

Argumentation update in YALLA (Yet Another Logic Language for Argumentation)

Optimization of dialectical outcomes in dialogical argumentation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About