Formal Analysis of Dialogues on Infinite Argumentation Frameworks

The paper analyses multi-agent strategic dialogues on possibly infinite argumentation frameworks. We develop a formal model for representing such dialogues, and introduce FOA-ATL, a first-order extension of alternating-time logic, for expressing the interplay of strategic and argumentation-theoretic properties. This setting is investigated with respect to the model checking problem, by means of a suitable notion of bisimulation. This notion of bisimulation is also used to shed light on how static properties of argumentation frameworks influence their dynamic behaviour.

[1]  Phan Minh Dung,et al.  On the Acceptability of Arguments and its Fundamental Role in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Logic Programming and n-Person Games , 1995, Artif. Intell..

[2]  Diego Calvanese,et al.  Verification of relational data-centric dynamic systems with external services , 2012, PODS.

[3]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Heuristics in Argumentation: A Game Theory Investigation , 2008, Comma.

[4]  Alin Deutsch,et al.  Automatic Verification of Data-Centric Business Processes , 2011, BPM.

[5]  Sanjay Modgil,et al.  Proof Theories and Algorithms for Abstract Argumentation Frameworks , 2009, Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence.

[6]  Ringo Baumann.  What Does it Take to Enforce an Argument? Minimal Change in abstract Argumentation , 2012, ECAI.

[7]  Ariel D. Procaccia,et al.  Extensive-Form Argumentation Games , 2005, EUMAS.

[8]  Dov M. Gabbay,et al.  A Logical Account of Formal Argumentation , 2009, Stud Logica.

[9]  Thomas A. Henzinger,et al.  Alternating-time temporal logic , 1997, Proceedings 38th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science.

[10]  Andreas Herzig,et al.  A Dynamic Logic Framework for Abstract Argumentation , 2014, KR.

[11]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Credulous and Sceptical Argument Games for Preferred Semantics , 2000, JELIA.

[12]  Alin Deutsch,et al.  Automatic verification of data-centric business processes , 2009, ICDT '09.

[13]  Leon van der Torre,et al.  A Logical Theory about Dynamics in Abstract Argumentation , 2013, SUM.

[14]  Alessio Lomuscio,et al.  An Abstraction Technique for the Verification of Artifact-Centric Systems , 2012, KR.

[15]  Pietro Baroni,et al.  An introduction to argumentation semantics , 2011, The Knowledge Engineering Review.

[16]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Heuristics in Argumentation: A Game-Theoretical Investigation , 2008, COMMA 2008.

[17]  Alessio Lomuscio,et al.  Verification of Agent-Based Artifact Systems , 2013, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[18]  Philippe Besnard,et al.  Checking the acceptability of a set of arguments , 2004, NMR.

[19]  J. Dix,et al.  Model Checking Logics of Strategic Ability: Complexity* , 2010 .

[20]  Pietro Baroni,et al.  Automata for infinite argumentation structures , 2013, Artif. Intell..

[21]  Alin Deutsch,et al.  Specification and verification of data-driven Web applications , 2007, J. Comput. Syst. Sci..

[22]  Iyad Rahwan,et al.  Logical mechanism design , 2011, Knowl. Eng. Rev..

[23]  Pietro Baroni,et al.  Computing with Infinite Argumentation Frameworks: The Case of AFRAs , 2011, TAFA.

[24]  Nicolas Maudet,et al.  On the outcomes of multiparty persuasion , 2011, AAMAS.

[25]  Alessio Lomuscio,et al.  MCMAS: A Model Checker for the Verification of Multi-Agent Systems , 2009, CAV.

[26]  Davide Grossi,et al.  On the logic of argumentation theory , 2010, AAMAS.

[27]  M. de Rijke,et al.  Modal Logic , 2001, Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science.

[28]  Claudette Cayrol,et al.  Enforcement in Argumentation Is a Kind of Update , 2013, SUM.

[29]  Alejandro Javier García,et al.  Classification and strategical issues of argumentation games on structured argumentation frameworks , 2010, AAMAS.