Argumentation as Exogenous Coordination

Formal argumentation is one of the most popular approaches in modern logic and reasoning. The theory of abstract argumentation introduced by Dung in 1995 has shifted the focus from the internal structure of arguments to relations among arguments, and temporal dynamics for abstract argumentation was proposed by Barringer, Gabbay and Woods in 2005. In this tradition, we see arguments as reasoning processes, and the interaction among them as a coordination process.We argue that abstract argumentation can adopt ideas and techniques from formal theories of coordination, and as an example we propose a model of sequential abstract argumentation loosely inspired by Reo’s model of exogenous coordination. We show how the argumentation model can represent the temporal dynamics of the liar paradox and predator-prey like behaviour

Burden of Persuasion: A Meta-argumentation Approach

This work defines a burden of persuasion meta-argumentation model interpreting burden as a set of meta-arguments. Bimodal graphs are exploited to define a meta level (dealing with the burden) and an object level (dealing with standard arguments). A novel technological reification of the model supporting the burden inversion mechanism is presented and discussed

On the input/output behavior of argumentation frameworks

This paper tackles the fundamental questions arising when looking at argumentation frameworks as interacting components, characterized by an Input/Output behavior, rather than as isolated monolithical entities. This modeling stance arises naturally in some application contexts, like multi-agent systems, but, more importantly, has a crucial impact on several general application-independent issues, like argumentation dynamics, argument summarization and explanation, incremental computation, and inter-formalism translation. Pursuing this research direction, the paper introduces a general modeling approach and provides a comprehensive set of theoretical results putting the intuitive notion of Input/Output behavior of argumentation frameworks on a solid formal ground. This is achieved by combining three main ingredients. First, several novel notions are introduced at the representation level, notably those of argumentation framework with input, of argumentation multipole, and of replacement of multipoles within a traditional argumentation framework. Second, several relevant features of argumentation semantics are identified and formally characterized. In particular, the canonical local function provides an input-aware semantics characterization and a suite of decomposability properties are introduced, concerning the correspondences between semantics outcomes at global and local level. The third ingredient glues the former ones, as it consists of the investigation of some semantics-dependent properties of the newly introduced entities, namely S-equivalence of multipoles, S-legitimacy and S-safeness of replacements, and transparency of a semantics with respect to replacements. Altogether they provide the basis and draw the limits of sound interchangeability of multipoles within traditional frameworks. The paper develops an extensive analysis of all the concepts listed above, covering seven well-known literature semantics and taking into account various, more or less constrained, ways of partitioning an argumentation framework. Diverse examples, taken from the literature, are used to illustrate the application of the results obtained and, finally, an extensive discussion of the related literature is provided

Burden of persuasion : a meta-argumentation approach

Published: May 2023This work defines a burden of persuasion meta-argumentation model interpreting burden as a set of meta-arguments. Bimodal graphs are exploited to define a meta level (dealing with the burden) and an object level (dealing with standard arguments). A novel technological reification of the model supporting the burden inversion mechanism is presented and discussed.The work has been supported by the “CompuLaw” project, funded by the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (Grant Agreement No.833647)

A Dynamic Approach for Combining Abstract Argumentation Semantics – Technical Report

Abstract argumentation semantics provide a direct relation from an argumentation framework to corresponding sets of acceptable arguments, or equivalently to labeling functions. Instead, we study step-wise update relations on argumentation frameworks whose fixpoints represent the labeling functions on the arguments. We make use of this dynamic approach in order to study novel ways of combining abstract argumentation semantics. In particular, we introduce the notion of a merge of two argumentation semantics, which is defined in such a way that the merge of the preferred and the grounded semantics is the complete semantics. Finally we consider how to define new semantics using the merge operator, in particular how meaningfully combine features of naive-based and complete-based semantics

Theme Aspect Argumentation Model for Handling Fallacies

From daily discussions to marketing ads to political statements, information manipulation is rife. It is increasingly more important that we have the right set of tools to defend ourselves from manipulative rhetoric, or fallacies. Suitable techniques to automatically identify fallacies are being investigated in natural language processing research. However, a fallacy in one context may not be a fallacy in another context, so there is also a need to explain how and why it has come to be judged a fallacy. For the explainable fallacy identification, we present a novel approach to characterising fallacies through formal constraints, as a viable alternative to more traditional fallacy classifications by informal criteria. To achieve this objective, we introduce a novel context-aware argumentation model, the theme aspect argumentation model, which can do both: the modelling of a given argumentation as it is expressed (rhetorical modelling); and a deeper semantic analysis of the rhetorical argumentation model. By identifying fallacies with formal constraints, it becomes possible to tell whether a fallacy lurks in the modelled rhetoric with a formal rigour. We present core formal constraints for the theme aspect argumentation model and then more formal constraints that improve its fallacy identification capability. We show and prove the consequences of these formal constraints. We then analyse the computational complexities of deciding the satisfiability of the constraints

Developments in abstract and assumption-based argumentation and their application in logic programming

Logic Programming (LP) and Argumentation are two paradigms for knowledge representation and reasoning under incomplete information. Even though the two paradigms share common features, they constitute mostly separate areas of research. In this thesis, we present novel developments in Argumentation, in particular in Assumption-Based Argumentation (ABA) and Abstract Argumentation (AA), and show how they can 1) extend the understanding of the relationship between the two paradigms and 2) provide solutions to problematic reasoning outcomes in LP. More precisely, we introduce assumption labellings as a novel way to express the semantics of ABA and prove a more straightforward relationship with LP semantics than found in previous work. Building upon these correspondence results, we apply methods for argument construction and conflict detection from ABA, and for conflict resolution from AA, to construct justifications of unexpected or unexplained LP solutions under the answer set semantics. We furthermore characterise reasons for the non-existence of stable semantics in AA and apply these findings to characterise different scenarios in which the computation of meaningful solutions in LP under the answer set semantics fails.Open Acces

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

Multi-sorted Argumentation

In the theory of abstract argumentation, the acceptance status of arguments is normally determined for the complete set of arguments at once, under a single semantics. However, this is not always desired. In this paper, we extend the notion of an argumentation framework to a multi-sorted argumentation framework, and we motivate this extension using an example which considers practical and epistemic arguments. In a multi-sorted argumentation framework, the arguments are partitioned into a number of cells, where each cell is associated with a semantics under which its arguments are evaluated. We prove the properties of the proposed framework, and we demonstrate our theory with a number of examples. Finally, we relate our theory to the theory of modal fibring of argumentation networks