Rationality postulates: applying argumentation theory for non-monotonic reasoning

The current book chapter examines how to apply Dung’s theory of abstract argumentation to define meaningful forms of nonmonotonic inference. The idea is that arguments are constructed using strict and defeasible inference rules, and that it is then examined how these arguments attack (or defeat) each other. The thus defined argumentation framework provides the basis for applying Dung-style semantics, yielding a number of extensions of arguments. As each of the constructed arguments has a conclusion, an extension of arguments has an associated extension of conclusions. It are these extensions of conclusions that we are interested in. In particular, we ask ourselves whether each of these extensions is (1) consistent, (2) closed under the strict inference rules and (3) free from undesired interference. We examine the current generation of techniques to satisfy these properties, and identify some research issues that are yet to be dealt with

On the equivalence between logic programming semantics and argumentation semantics

This work has been supported by the National Research Fund, Luxembourg (LAAMI project), by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC, UK), grant Ref. EP/J012084/1 (SAsSy project), by CNPq (Universal 2012 – Proc. 473110/2012-1), and by CNPq/CAPES (Casadinho/PROCAD 2011).Peer reviewedPreprin

Classical logic, argument and dialectic

A well studied instantiation of Dung's abstract theory of argumentation yields argumentation-based characterisations of non-monotonic inference over possibly inconsistent sets of classical formulae. This provides for single-agent reasoning in terms of argument and counter-argument, and distributed non-monotonic reasoning in the form of dialogues between computational and/or human agents. However, features of existing formalisations of classical logic argumentation (Cl-Arg) that ensure satisfaction of rationality postulates, preclude applications of Cl-Arg that account for real-world dialectical uses of arguments by resource-bounded agents. This paper formalises dialectical classical logic argumentation that both satisfies these practical desiderata and is provably rational. In contrast to standard approaches to Cl-Arg we: 1) draw an epistemic distinction between an argument's premises accepted as true, and those assumed true for the sake of argument, so formalising the dialectical move whereby arguments\u2019 premises are shown to be inconsistent, and avoiding the foreign commitment problem that arises in dialogical applications; 2) provide an account of Cl-Arg suitable for real-world use by eschewing the need to check that an argument's premises are subset minimal and consistent, and identifying a minimal set of assumptions as to the arguments that must be constructed from a set of formulae in order to ensure that the outcome of evaluation is rational. We then illustrate our approach with a natural deduction proof theory for propositional classical logic that allows measurement of the \u2018depth\u2019 of an argument, such that the construction of depth-bounded arguments is a tractable problem, and each increase in depth naturally equates with an increase in the inferential capabilities of real-world agents. We also provide a resource-bounded argumentative characterisation of non-monotonic inference as defined by Brewka's Preferred Subtheories

A logic of defeasible argumentation: Constructing arguments in justification logic

In the 1980s, Pollock’s work on default reasons started the quest in the AI community for a formal system of defeasible argumentation. The main goal of this paper is to provide a logic of structured defeasible arguments using the language of justification logic. In this logic, we introduce defeasible justification assertions of the type t:F that read as “t is a defeasible reason that justifies F”. Such formulas are then interpreted as arguments and their acceptance semantics is given in analogy to Dung’s abstract argumentation framework semantics. We show that a large subclass of Dung’s frameworks that we call “warranted” frameworks is a special case of our logic in the sense that (1) Dung’s frameworks can be obtained from justification logic-based theories by focusing on a single aspect of attacks among justification logic arguments and (2) Dung’s warranted frameworks always have multiple justification logic instantiations called “realizations”. We first define a new justification logic that relies on operational semantics for default logic. One of the key features that is absent in standard justification logics is the possibility to weigh different epistemic reasons or pieces of evidence that might conflict with one another. To amend this, we develop a semantics for “defeaters”: conflicting reasons forming a basis to doubt the original conclusion or to believe an opposite statement. This enables us to formalize non-monotonic justifications that prompt extension revision already for normal default theories. Then we present our logic as a system for abstract argumentation with structured arguments. The format of conflicting reasons overlaps with the idea of attacks between arguments to the extent that it is possible to define all the standard notions of argumentation framework extensions. Using the definitions of extensions, we establish formal correspondence between Dung’s original argumentation semantics and our operational semantics for default theories. One of the results shows that the notorious attack cycles from abstract argumentation cannot always be realized as justification logic default theories

A Purely Defeasible Argumentation Framework

Argumentation theory is concerned with the way that intelligent agents discuss whether some statement holds. It is a claim-based theory that is widely used in many areas, such as law, linguistics and computer science. In the past few years, formal argumentation frameworks have been heavily studied and applications have been proposed in fields such as natural language processing, the semantic web and multi-agent systems. Studying argumentation provides results which help in developing tools and applications in these areas. Argumentation is interesting as a logic-based approach to deal with inconsistent information. Arguments are constructed using a process like logical inference, with inconsistencies giving rise to conflicts between arguments. These conflicts can then be handled by well-founded means, giving a consistent set of well-justified arguments and conclusions. Dung\u27s seminal work tells us how to handle the conflicts between arguments. However, it says nothing about the structure of arguments, or how to construct arguments and attack relationships from a knowledge base. ASPIC+ is one of the most widely used systems for structured arguments. However, there are some limitations on ASPIC+ if it is to satisfy widely accepted standards of rationality. Since most of these limitations are due to the use of strict rules, it is worth considering using a purely defeasible subset of ASPIC+. The main contribution of this dissertation is the purely defeasible argumentation framework ASPIC+D. There are three research questions related to this topic which are investigated here: (1) Do we lose anything in removing the strict elements? (2) Do purely defeasible version of theories generate the same results as the original theories? (3) What do we gain by removing the strict elements? I show that using ASPIC+D, it is possible, in a well-defined sense, to capture the same information as using ASPIC+ with strict rules. In particular, I prove that under some reasonable assumptions, it is possible to take a well-defined theory in ASPIC+, that is one with a consistent set of conclusions, and translate it into ASPIC+D such that, under the grounded semantics, we obtain the same set of justified conclusions. I also show that, under some additional assumptions, the same is true under any complete-based semantics. Furthermore, I formally characterize the situations in which translating an ASPIC+ theory that is ill-defined into ASPIC+D will lead to the same sets of justified conclusions. In doing this I deal both with ASPIC+ theories that are not closed under transposition and theories that are axiom inconsistent. At last, I analyze the two systems in the context of the non-monotonic axioms. I show that ASPIC+ and ASPIC+D satisfy exactly same axioms under what I call the “argument construction” interpretation and the “justified conclusions” interpretation under the grounded semantics. Furthermore, because of the lack of strict elements, ASPIC+ satisfies more of the non-monotonic axioms than ASPIC+ in the ``justified conclusions\u27\u27 interpretation under the preferred semantic. This means that ASPIC+ and ASPIC+D may not have the same justified conclusions under the preferred semantics

Distributed argumentation technology: advancing risk analysis and regulatory compliance of distributed ledger technologies for transaction and management of securities

Distributed argumentation technology is a computational approach incorporating argumentation reasoning mechanisms within multi-agent systems. For the formal foundations of distributed argumentation technology, in this thesis we conduct a principle-based analysis of structured argumentation as well as abstract multi-agent and abstract bipolar argumentation. The results of the principle-based approach of these theories provide an overview and guideline for further applications of the theories. Moreover, in this thesis we explore distributed argumentation technology using distributed ledgers. We envision an Intelligent Human-input-based Blockchain Oracle (IHiBO), an artificial intelligence tool for storing argumentation reasoning. We propose a decentralized and secure architecture for conducting decision-making, addressing key concerns of trust, transparency, and immutability. We model fund management with agent argumentation in IHiBO and analyze its compliance with European fund management legal frameworks. We illustrate how bipolar argumentation balances pros and cons in legal reasoning in a legal divorce case, and how the strength of arguments in natural language can be represented in structured arguments. Finally, we discuss how distributed argumentation technology can be used to advance risk management, regulatory compliance of distributed ledgers for financial securities, and dialogue techniques