Skip to main content

Computing Consensus: A Logic for Reasoning About Deliberative Processes Based on Argumentation

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Multi-Agent Systems (EUMAS 2018)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 11450))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 543 Accesses

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].

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Possibly “statements” or“positions”, depending on the context of application.

  2. 2.

    These “partial consensuses” are sometimes referred to as“contexts” when they are used to describe graphs inductively, as we will do later.

References

  1. Arieli, O., Caminada, M.W.: A QBF-based formalization of abstract argumentation semantics. J. Appl. Log. 11(2), 229–252 (2013)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  2. Baroni, P., Giacomin, M.: On principle-based evaluation of extension-based argumentation semantics. Artif. Intell. 171(10–15), 675–700 (2007)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  3. Bodanza, G., Tohmé, F., Auday, M.: Collective argumentation: a survey of aggregation issues around argumentation frameworks. Argument Comput. 8(1), 1–34 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 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

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. 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)

    Google Scholar 

  6. 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)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  7. Dyrkolbotn, S., Walicki, M.: Propositional discourse logic. Synthese 191(5), 863–899 (2014)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  8. 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

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  9. 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)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Rahwan, I., Simari, G.R.: Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, vol. 47. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  11. 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

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Truls Pedersen .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics