On the meta-logic of arguments

ABSTRACT

Argumentation has received steadily increasing attention in the multi-agent systems community over the past decade, with particular interest in the use of argument models from the informal logic community. The formalisation of such argument systems is a necessary step if they are to be successfully deployed, and their properties rigorously understood. However, there is as yet no widely accepted approach to the formalisation of argument systems. In this paper, we take as our starting point the view that arguments and dialogues are inherently meta-logical, and that any proper formalisation of argument must embrace this aspect of their nature. For example, a statement that serves as a justification of an argument is is statement about an argument: the argument for which the justification serves must itself be referred to in the justification. From this starting position, we develop a formalisation of arguments using a hierarchical first-order meta-logic, in which statements in successively higher tiers of the argumentation hierarchy refer to statements further down the hierarchy. This enables us to give a clean formal separation between object-level statements, arguments made about these object level statements, and statements about arguments.

REFERENCES

• 1: T. J. M. Bench-Capon. Persuasion in practical argument using value based argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation, 13(3):429--448, 2003.
• 2: Philippe Besnard , Anthony Hunter, A logic-based theory of deductive arguments, Artificial Intelligence, v.128 n.1-2, p.203-235, May 2001 [doi>10.1016/S0004-3702(01)00071-6]
• 3: A. Bondarenko , P. M. Dung , R. A. Kowalski , F. Toni, An abstract, argumentation-theoretic approach to default reasoning, Artificial Intelligence, v.93 n.1-2, p.63-101, June 1997 [doi>10.1016/S0004-3702(97)00015-5]
• 4: G. Brewka. Dynamic argument systems: A formal model of argumentation processes based on situation calculus. Journal of Logic and Computation, 11(2):257--282, 2001.
• 5: Stefania Costantini, Meta-reasoning: A Survey, Computational Logic: Logic Programming and Beyond, Essays in Honour of Robert A. Kowalski, Part II, p.253-288, January 2002
• 6: M. Dummett. Elements of Intuitionism. Oxford University Press: Oxford, England, 1977.
• 7: Phan Minh Dung, On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games, Artificial Intelligence, v.77 n.2, p.321-357, Sept. 1995 [doi>10.1016/0004-3702(94)00041-X]
• 8: Michael R. Genesereth , Nils J. Nilsson, Logical foundations of artificial intelligence, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CA, 1987
• 9: John Grant , Sarit Kraus , Donald Perlis, A Logic for Characterizing Multiple Bounded Agents, Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, v.3 n.4, p.351-387, December 2000 [doi>10.1023/A:1010050603219]
• 10: K. Konolige. A first-order formalization of knowledge and action for a multi-agent planning system. In J. E. Hayes, D. Michie, and Y. Pao, editors, Machine Intelligence 10, pages 41--72. Ellis Horwood: Chichester, England, 1982.
• 11: P. Krause, S. Ambler, M. Elvang-Gøransson, and J. Fox. A logic of argumentation for reasoning under uncertainty. Computational Intelligence, 11:113--131, 1995.
• 12: S. Parsons, C. A. Sierra, and N. R. Jennings. Agents that reason and negotiate by arguing. Journal of Logic and Computation, 8(3):261--292, 1998.
• 13: S. Parsons, M. Wooldridge, and L. Amgoud. Properties and complexity of some formal inter-agent dialogues. Journal of Logic and Computation, 13(3):347--376, 2003.
• 14: C. Perelman and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca. The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. University of Note Dame Press: Notre Dame, 1969.
• 15: Donald Perlis, Languages with self-reference I: foundations (or: we can have everything in first-order logic]), Artificial Intelligence, v.25 n.3, p.301-322, March 1985 [doi>10.1016/0004-3702(85)90075-X]
• 16: D. Perlis. Meta in logic. In P. Maes and D. Nardi, editors, Meta-Level Architectures and Reflection, pages 37--49. Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1988.
• 17: John L. Pollock, Justification and defeat, Artificial Intelligence, v.67 n.2, p.377-407, June 1994 [doi>10.1016/0004-3702(94)90057-4]
• 18: H. Prakken and G. Vreeswijk. Logics for defeasible argumentation. In D. Gabbay and F. Guenther, editors, Handbook of Philosophical Logic (second edition). Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2001.
• 19: C. Reed, Dialogue Frames in Agent Communication, Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Multi Agent Systems, p.246, July 03-07, 1998
• 20: Carles Sierra , Nicholas R. Jennings , Pablo Noriega , Simon Parsons, A Framework for Argumentation-Based Negotiation, Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Intelligent Agents IV, Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages, p.177-192, July 24-26, 1997
• 21: L. Sterling and E. Shapiro. The Art of Prolog (Second Edition). The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, 1994.
• 22: S. Toulmin. The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, England, 1958.
• 23: Raymond Turner, Truth and modality for knowledge representation, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1991
• 24: D. N. Walton and E. C. W. Krabbe. Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. State University of New York Press, Albany, NY, 1995.

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  I. Computing Methodologies
  I.2 ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
        I.2.11 Distributed Artificial Intelligence

Additional Classification:
  I. Computing Methodologies
  I.2 ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
      I.2.4 Knowledge Representation Formalisms and Methods

General Terms:
Languages, Theory

Keywords:
argumentation, knowledge representation, meta-level reasoning, multi-agent systems