A logic of argumentation for specification and verification of abstract argumentation frameworks

S Villata, G Boella, DM Gabbay, L van der Torre, J Hulstijn

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

Abstract

In this paper, we propose a logic of argumentation for the specification and verification (LA4SV) of requirements on Dung’s abstract argumentation frameworks. We distinguish three kinds of decision problems for argumentation verification, called extension verification, framework verification, and specification verification respectively. For example, given a political requirement like “if the argument to increase taxes is accepted, then the argument to increase services must be accepted too,” we can either verify an extension of acceptable arguments, or all extensions of an argumentation framework, or all extensions of all argumentation frameworks satisfying a framework specification. We introduce the logic of argumentation verification to specify such requirements, and we represent the three verification problems of argumentation as model checking and theorem proving properties of the logic. Moreover, we recast the logic of argumentation verification in a modal framework, in order to express multiple extensions, and properties like transitivity and reflexivity of the attack relation. Finally, we introduce a logic of meta-argumentation where abstract argumentation is used to reason about abstract argumentation itself. We define the logic of meta-argumentation using the fibring methodology in such a way to represent attack relations not only among arguments but also among attacks. We show how to use this logic to verify the requirements of argumentation frameworks where higher-order attacks are allowed [A preliminary version of the logic of argumentation compliance was called the logic of abstract argumentation (2005).]
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)199-230
Number of pages32
JournalAnnals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence
Volume66
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2012
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Argumentation
Logic
Specification
Specifications
Attack
Theorem proving
Requirements
Framework
Model checking
Taxation
Verify
Reflexivity
Theorem Proving
Transitivity
Tax
Decision problem
Compliance
Model Checking

Keywords

  • abstract argumentation theory
  • higher-order argumentation
  • modelling

Cite this

@article{0dd8fbc6f78c4e81a13e598c3d71ee03,
title = "A logic of argumentation for specification and verification of abstract argumentation frameworks",
abstract = "In this paper, we propose a logic of argumentation for the specification and verification (LA4SV) of requirements on Dung’s abstract argumentation frameworks. We distinguish three kinds of decision problems for argumentation verification, called extension verification, framework verification, and specification verification respectively. For example, given a political requirement like “if the argument to increase taxes is accepted, then the argument to increase services must be accepted too,” we can either verify an extension of acceptable arguments, or all extensions of an argumentation framework, or all extensions of all argumentation frameworks satisfying a framework specification. We introduce the logic of argumentation verification to specify such requirements, and we represent the three verification problems of argumentation as model checking and theorem proving properties of the logic. Moreover, we recast the logic of argumentation verification in a modal framework, in order to express multiple extensions, and properties like transitivity and reflexivity of the attack relation. Finally, we introduce a logic of meta-argumentation where abstract argumentation is used to reason about abstract argumentation itself. We define the logic of meta-argumentation using the fibring methodology in such a way to represent attack relations not only among arguments but also among attacks. We show how to use this logic to verify the requirements of argumentation frameworks where higher-order attacks are allowed [A preliminary version of the logic of argumentation compliance was called the logic of abstract argumentation (2005).]",
keywords = "abstract argumentation theory, higher-order argumentation, modelling",
author = "S Villata and G Boella and DM Gabbay and {van der Torre}, L and J Hulstijn",
year = "2012",
doi = "10.1007/s10472-012-9318-6",
language = "English",
volume = "66",
pages = "199--230",
journal = "Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence",
issn = "1012-2443",
publisher = "Springer Netherlands",
number = "1",

}

A logic of argumentation for specification and verification of abstract argumentation frameworks. / Villata, S; Boella, G; Gabbay, DM; van der Torre, L; Hulstijn, J.

In: Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 66, No. 1, 2012, p. 199-230.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - A logic of argumentation for specification and verification of abstract argumentation frameworks

AU - Villata, S

AU - Boella, G

AU - Gabbay, DM

AU - van der Torre, L

AU - Hulstijn, J

PY - 2012

Y1 - 2012

N2 - In this paper, we propose a logic of argumentation for the specification and verification (LA4SV) of requirements on Dung’s abstract argumentation frameworks. We distinguish three kinds of decision problems for argumentation verification, called extension verification, framework verification, and specification verification respectively. For example, given a political requirement like “if the argument to increase taxes is accepted, then the argument to increase services must be accepted too,” we can either verify an extension of acceptable arguments, or all extensions of an argumentation framework, or all extensions of all argumentation frameworks satisfying a framework specification. We introduce the logic of argumentation verification to specify such requirements, and we represent the three verification problems of argumentation as model checking and theorem proving properties of the logic. Moreover, we recast the logic of argumentation verification in a modal framework, in order to express multiple extensions, and properties like transitivity and reflexivity of the attack relation. Finally, we introduce a logic of meta-argumentation where abstract argumentation is used to reason about abstract argumentation itself. We define the logic of meta-argumentation using the fibring methodology in such a way to represent attack relations not only among arguments but also among attacks. We show how to use this logic to verify the requirements of argumentation frameworks where higher-order attacks are allowed [A preliminary version of the logic of argumentation compliance was called the logic of abstract argumentation (2005).]

AB - In this paper, we propose a logic of argumentation for the specification and verification (LA4SV) of requirements on Dung’s abstract argumentation frameworks. We distinguish three kinds of decision problems for argumentation verification, called extension verification, framework verification, and specification verification respectively. For example, given a political requirement like “if the argument to increase taxes is accepted, then the argument to increase services must be accepted too,” we can either verify an extension of acceptable arguments, or all extensions of an argumentation framework, or all extensions of all argumentation frameworks satisfying a framework specification. We introduce the logic of argumentation verification to specify such requirements, and we represent the three verification problems of argumentation as model checking and theorem proving properties of the logic. Moreover, we recast the logic of argumentation verification in a modal framework, in order to express multiple extensions, and properties like transitivity and reflexivity of the attack relation. Finally, we introduce a logic of meta-argumentation where abstract argumentation is used to reason about abstract argumentation itself. We define the logic of meta-argumentation using the fibring methodology in such a way to represent attack relations not only among arguments but also among attacks. We show how to use this logic to verify the requirements of argumentation frameworks where higher-order attacks are allowed [A preliminary version of the logic of argumentation compliance was called the logic of abstract argumentation (2005).]

KW - abstract argumentation theory

KW - higher-order argumentation

KW - modelling

U2 - 10.1007/s10472-012-9318-6

DO - 10.1007/s10472-012-9318-6

M3 - Article

VL - 66

SP - 199

EP - 230

JO - Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence

JF - Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence

SN - 1012-2443

IS - 1

ER -