Constraints and changes: A survey of abstract argumentation dynamics

Doutre, Sylvie; Mailly, Jean-Guy

doi:10.3233/aac-180425

Cited by 54 publications

(46 citation statements)

References 47 publications

(110 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A recent survey [52] gives an interesting overview over many approaches to dynamics of argumentation, constraints, and changes. In the following, we discuss relations of our work to several related works (including, but not restricting, to content of the survey).…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Structural constraints for dynamic operators in abstract argumentation

Wallner

2020

AAC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many recent studies of dynamics in formal argumentation within AI focus on the well-known formalism of Dung's argumentation frameworks (AFs). Despite the usefulness of AFs in many areas of argumentation, their abstract notion of arguments creates a barrier for operators that modify a given AF, e.g., in the case that dependencies between arguments have been abstracted away that are important for subsequent modifications. In this paper we aim to support development of dynamic operators on formal models in abstract argumentation by providing constraints imposed on the modification of the structure that can be used to incorporate information that has been abstracted away. Towards a broad reach, we base our results on the general formalism of abstract dialectical frameworks (ADFs) in abstract argumentation. To show applicability, we present two cases studies that adapt an existing extension enforcement operator that modifies AFs: in the first case study, we show how to utilize constraints in order to obtain an enforcement operator on ADFs that is allowed to only add support relations between arguments, and in the second case study we show how an enforcement operator on AFs can be defined that respects dependencies between arguments. We show feasibility of our approach by studying the complexity of the proposed structural constraints and the operators arising from the case studies, and by an experimental evaluation of an answer set programming (ASP) implementation of the enforcement operator based on supports.

show abstract

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…AFs are also prominent as a formal basis for an emergent topic in formal argumentation, namely that of dynamics of argumentation [10,34,44,48,52], which can partially also be attributed to the easy-tograsp conceptual nature of AFs. The investigation of dynamics of argumentation arose naturally in the 152…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Structural constraints for dynamic operators in abstract argumentation

Wallner

2020

AAC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…See for instance [18,44,45,48,51,52]. Moreover, it is worth noticed that a survey has been done in the context of dynamics in argumentation frameworks, see [53].…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

“…communicating an argument) and different belief updates by the agents. Here again, while dynamics of argument communication is the focus of a well-established tradition in abstract argumentation (see Doutre and Mailly 2018 for a survey), belief updates are mostly confined to the tradition going from AGM belief revision (Alchourrón et al 1985) to DEL (van Ditmarsch et al 2007;van Benthem 2011). To the best of our knowledge, there is no unified logical framework for treating both aspects 5 A general framework for reasoning about argumentative and epistemic actions becomes relevant insofar agents are liable to revise their knowledge base in different ways, as it is the case for Mom in our running example.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dynamic epistemic logics for abstract argumentation

Proietti

Yuste-Ginel

2021

Synthese

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper introduces a multi-agent dynamic epistemic logic for abstract argumentation. Its main motivation is to build a general framework for modelling the dynamics of a debate, which entails reasoning about goals, beliefs, as well as policies of communication and information update by the participants. After locating our proposal and introducing the relevant tools from abstract argumentation, we proceed to build a three-tiered logical approach. At the first level, we use the language of propositional logic to encode states of a multi-agent debate. This language allows to specify which arguments any agent is aware of, as well as their subjective justification status. We then extend our language and semantics to that of epistemic logic, in order to model individuals’ beliefs about the state of the debate, which includes uncertainty about the information available to others. As a third step, we introduce a framework of dynamic epistemic logic and its semantics, which is essentially based on so-called event models with factual change. We provide completeness results for a number of systems and show how existing formalisms for argumentation dynamics and unquantified uncertainty can be reduced to their semantics. The resulting framework allows reasoning about subtle epistemic and argumentative updates—such as the effects of different levels of trust in a source—and more in general about the epistemic dimensions of strategic communication.

show abstract

Constraints and changes: A survey of abstract argumentation dynamics

Cited by 54 publications

References 47 publications

Structural constraints for dynamic operators in abstract argumentation

Structural constraints for dynamic operators in abstract argumentation

Logical theories and abstract argumentation: A survey of existing works

Dynamic epistemic logics for abstract argumentation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About