Document Open Access Logo

A Concurrent Language for Argumentation: Preliminary Notes

Authors Stefano Bistarelli , Carlo Taticchi

PDF
Thumbnail PDF

File

OASIcs.Gabbrielli.9.pdf
  • Filesize: 1.55 MB
  • 22 pages

Document Identifiers

Author Details

Stefano Bistarelli
  • University of Perugia, Italy
Carlo Taticchi
  • Gran Sasso Science Institute, L'Aquila, Italy

Funding

This work was partially supported by "Argumentation 360" (Ricerca di Base 2017-2019), "RACRA" (Ricerca di Base 2018-2020) and "ASIA" (Social Interaction with Argumentation - GNCS-INDAM).

Cite As Get BibTex

Stefano Bistarelli and Carlo Taticchi. A Concurrent Language for Argumentation: Preliminary Notes. In Recent Developments in the Design and Implementation of Programming Languages. Open Access Series in Informatics (OASIcs), Volume 86, pp. 9:1-9:22, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2020) https://doi.org/10.4230/OASIcs.Gabbrielli.9

Abstract

While agent-based modelling languages naturally implement concurrency, the currently available languages for argumentation do not allow to explicitly model this type of interaction. In this paper we introduce a concurrent language for handling process arguing and communicating using a shared argumentation framework (reminding shared constraint store as in concurrent constraint). We introduce also basic expansions, contraction and revision procedures as main bricks for enforcement, debate, negotiation and persuasion.

Subject Classification

ACM Subject Classification
  • Computing methodologies → Knowledge representation and reasoning
  • Theory of computation → Concurrency
  • Computing methodologies → Concurrent programming languages
Keywords
  • Argumentation
  • Concurrent Language
  • Debating
  • Negotiation
  • Belief Revision

Metrics

  • Access Statistics
  • Total Accesses (updated on a weekly basis)
    0
    PDF Downloads
    0
    Metadata Views

References

  1. Carlos E. Alchourrón, Peter Gärdenfors, and David Makinson. On the logic of theory change: Partial meet contraction and revision functions. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 50(02):510-530, June 1985. URL: https://doi.org/10.2307/2274239.
  2. Pietro Baroni, Martin Caminada, and Massimiliano Giacomin. An introduction to argumentation semantics. Knowledge Eng. Review, 26(4):365-410, 2011. URL: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0269888911000166.
  3. Pietro Baroni and Massimiliano Giacomin. On principle-based evaluation of extension-based argumentation semantics. Artif. Intell., 171(10-15):675-700, 2007. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2007.04.004.
  4. Ringo Baumann. What Does it Take to Enforce an Argument? Minimal Change in abstract Argumentation. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, pages 127-132, 2012. URL: https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-61499-098-7-127.
  5. Ringo Baumann and Gerhard Brewka. Expanding argumentation frameworks: Enforcing and monotonicity results. In Pietro Baroni, Federico Cerutti, Massimiliano Giacomin, and Guillermo Ricardo Simari, editors, Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2010, Desenzano del Garda, Italy, September 8-10, 2010, volume 216 of Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, pages 75-86. IOS Press, 2010. URL: https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-60750-619-5-75.
  6. Dorothea Baumeister, Daniel Neugebauer, Jörg Rothe, and Hilmar Schadrack. Verification in incomplete argumentation frameworks. Artif. Intell., 264:1-26, 2018. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2018.08.001.
  7. Stefano Bistarelli, Lars Kotthoff, Francesco Santini, and Carlo Taticchi. Containerisation and Dynamic Frameworks in ICCMA'19. In Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Systems and Algorithms for Formal Argumentation (SAFA 2018) Co-Located with the 7th International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2018), Warsaw, Poland, September 11, 2018, volume 2171 of CEUR Workshop Proceedings, pages 4-9. CEUR-WS.org, 2018. Google Scholar
  8. Stefano Bistarelli and Francesco Santini. Conarg: A constraint-based computational framework for argumentation systems. In IEEE 23rd International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence, ICTAI 2011, Boca Raton, FL, USA, November 7-9, 2011, pages 605-612. IEEE Computer Society, 2011. URL: https://doi.org/10.1109/ICTAI.2011.96.
  9. Stefano Bistarelli, Francesco Santini, and Carlo Taticchi. On Looking for Invariant Operators in Argumentation Semantics. In Proceedings of the Thirty-First International Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society Conference, FLAIRS 2018, Melbourne, Florida, USA. May 21-23 2018., pages 537-540, 2018. Google Scholar
  10. Guido Boella, Souhila Kaci, and Leendert W. N. van der Torre. Dynamics in Argumentation with Single Extensions: Attack Refinement and the Grounded Extension (Extended Version). In Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems, 6th International Workshop, ArgMAS 2009. Revised Selected and Invited Papers, volume 6057 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 150-159. Springer, 2009. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-12805-9_9.
  11. Martin Caminada. On the Issue of Reinstatement in Argumentation. In Logics in Artificial Intelligence, 10th European Conference, JELIA 2006, Liverpool, UK, September 13-15, 2006, Proceedings, volume 4160 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 111-123. Springer, 2006. Google Scholar
  12. Martin Caminada. On the Issue of Reinstatement in Argumentation. In Michael Fisher, Wiebe van der Hoek, Boris Konev, and Alexei Lisitsa, editors, Logics in Artificial Intelligence, 10th European Conference, JELIA 2006, Liverpool, UK, September 13-15, 2006, Proceedings, volume 4160 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 111-123. Springer, 2006. Google Scholar
  13. Claudette Cayrol, Florence Dupin de Saint-Cyr, and Marie-Christine Lagasquie-Schiex. Revision of an Argumentation System. In Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference, KR 2008, Sydney, Australia, September 16-19, 2008, pages 124-134. AAAI Press, 2008. Google Scholar
  14. Sylvie Coste-Marquis, Sébastien Konieczny, Jean-Guy Mailly, and Pierre Marquis. Extension enforcement in abstract argumentation as an optimization problem. In Qiang Yang and Michael J. Wooldridge, editors, Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2015, Buenos Aires, Argentina, July 25-31, 2015, pages 2876-2882. AAAI Press, 2015. URL: http://ijcai.org/Abstract/15/407.
  15. Frank S. de Boer, Maurizio Gabbrielli, and Maria Chiara Meo. Semantics and expressive power of a timed concurrent constraint language. In Gert Smolka, editor, Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming - CP97, Third International Conference, Linz, Austria, October 29 - November 1, 1997, Proceedings, volume 1330 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 47-61. Springer, 1997. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0017429.
  16. Frank S. de Boer, Maurizio Gabbrielli, and Maria Chiara Meo. A timed concurrent constraint language. Inf. Comput., 161(1):45-83, 2000. URL: https://doi.org/10.1006/inco.1999.2879.
  17. Sylvie Doutre, Andreas Herzig, and Laurent Perrussel. A Dynamic Logic Framework for Abstract Argumentation. In Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference, KR 2014, Vienna, Austria, July 20-24, 2014, 2014. Google Scholar
  18. Phan Minh Dung. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence, 77(2):321-357, September 1995. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/0004-3702(94)00041-X.
  19. Florence Dupin de Saint-Cyr, Pierre Bisquert, Claudette Cayrol, and Marie-Christine Lagasquie-Schiex. Argumentation update in YALLA (Yet Another Logic Language for Argumentation). International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 75:57-92, August 2016. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijar.2016.04.003.
  20. Wolfgang Dvorák and Paul E. Dunne. Computational problems in formal argumentation and their complexity. FLAP, 4(8), 2017. URL: http://www.collegepublications.co.uk/downloads/ifcolog00017.pdf.
  21. Jacob Glazer and Ariel Rubinstein. Debates and Decisions: On a Rationale of Argumentation Rules. Games and Economic Behavior, 36(2):158-173, 2001. URL: https://doi.org/10.1006/game.2000.0824.
  22. Hadassa Jakobovits and Dirk Vermeir. Robust semantics for argumentation frameworks. J. Log. Comput., 9(2):215-261, 1999. URL: https://doi.org/10.1093/logcom/9.2.215.
  23. Magdalena Kacprzak, Katarzyna Budzynska, and Olena Yaskorska. A logic for strategies in persuasion dialogue games. In Advances in Knowledge-Based and Intelligent Information and Engineering Systems - 16th Annual KES Conference, San Sebastian, Spain, 10-12 September 2012, volume 243 of Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, pages 98-107. IOS Press, 2012. URL: https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-61499-105-2-98.
  24. Nicolas Maudet, Simon Parsons, and Iyad Rahwan. Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems: Context and Recent Developments. In Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems, Third International Workshop, ArgMAS 2006, Hakodate, Japan, May 8, 2006, Revised Selected and Invited Papers, pages 1-16, 2006. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-75526-5_1.
  25. Henry Prakken. Models of Persuasion Dialogue. In Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, pages 281-300. Springer, 2009. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-98197-0_14.
  26. Henry Prakken. An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. Argument & Computation, 1(2):93-124, 2010. URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/19462160903564592.
  27. Henry Prakken and Michiel De Winter. Abstraction in argumentation: Necessary but dangerous. In Sanjay Modgil, Katarzyna Budzynska, and John Lawrence, editors, Computational Models of Argument - Proceedings of COMMA 2018, Warsaw, Poland, 12-14 September 2018, volume 305 of Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, pages 85-96. IOS Press, 2018. URL: https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-61499-906-5-85.
  28. Nicolas D. Rotstein, Martın O. Moguillansky, Alejandro J. Garcia, and Guillermo R. Simari. An abstract argumentation framework for handling dynamics. In Proceedings of the Argument, Dialogue and Decision Workshop in NMR 2008, Sydney, Australia, pages 131-139, 2008. Google Scholar
  29. Vijay A. Saraswat and Martin Rinard. Concurrent constraint programming. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages - POPL '90, pages 232-245, San Francisco, California, United States, 1990. ACM Press. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/96709.96733.
  30. Francesca Toni. A tutorial on assumption-based argumentation. Argument & Computation, 5(1):89-117, 2014. URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/19462166.2013.869878.
Questions / Remarks / Feedback
X

Feedback for Dagstuhl Publishing


Thanks for your feedback!

Feedback submitted

Could not send message

Please try again later or send an E-mail
© 2023-2024 Schloss Dagstuhl – LZI GmbH About DROPS Imprint Privacy Contact