Abstract
Argumentation theory can encode an agent’s assessment of the state of an exchange of points of view. We present a conservative model of multiple agents potentially disagreeing on the views presented during a process of deliberation. We model this process as iteratively adding points of view (arguments), or aspects of points of view. This gives rise to a modal logic, deliberative dynamic logic, which permits us to reason about the possible developments of the deliberative state. The logic we propose applies to all natural semantics of argumentation theory. Furthermore, under a very weak assumption that the consensus considered by a group of agents is faithful to their individual views, we show that model checking these models is feasible, as long as the argumentation frameworks, which may be infinite, does not have infinite branching.
This paper was presented at the 1st International Workshop on Argument for Agreement and Assurance (AAA 2013) and made available online, it has since been cited in [3].
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Possibly “statements” or“positions”, depending on the context of application.
- 2.
These “partial consensuses” are sometimes referred to as“contexts” when they are used to describe graphs inductively, as we will do later.
References
Arieli, O., Caminada, M.W.: A QBF-based formalization of abstract argumentation semantics. J. Appl. Log. 11(2), 229–252 (2013)
Baroni, P., Giacomin, M.: On principle-based evaluation of extension-based argumentation semantics. Artif. Intell. 171(10–15), 675–700 (2007)
Bodanza, G., Tohmé, F., Auday, M.: Collective argumentation: a survey of aggregation issues around argumentation frameworks. Argument Comput. 8(1), 1–34 (2017)
Caminada, M.: On the issue of reinstatement in argumentation. In: Fisher, M., van der Hoek, W., Konev, B., Lisitsa, A. (eds.) JELIA 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4160, pp. 111–123. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/11853886_11
Caminada, M., Pigozzi, G., Podlaszewski, M.: Manipulation in group argument evaluation. In: The 10th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, vol. 3, pp. 1127–1128. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (2011)
Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif. Intell. 77(2), 321–357 (1995)
Dyrkolbotn, S., Walicki, M.: Propositional discourse logic. Synthese 191(5), 863–899 (2014)
Grossi, D.: Argumentation in the view of modal logic. In: McBurney, P., Rahwan, I., Parsons, S. (eds.) ArgMAS 2010. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 6614, pp. 190–208. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21940-5_12
Grossi, D.: On the logic of argumentation theory. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, vol. 1, pp. 409–416. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (2010)
Rahwan, I., Simari, G.R.: Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, vol. 47. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)
Sakama, C., Caminada, M., Herzig, A.: A logical account of lying. In: Janhunen, T., Niemelä, I. (eds.) JELIA 2010. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 6341, pp. 286–299. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-15675-5_25
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Dyrkolbotn, S., Pedersen, T. (2019). Computing Consensus: A Logic for Reasoning About Deliberative Processes Based on Argumentation. In: Slavkovik, M. (eds) Multi-Agent Systems. EUMAS 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 11450. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14174-5_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14174-5_14
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-14173-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-14174-5
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)