A Survey of Research on Logic Model of Argumentation
XIONG Cai-Quan1,SUN Xian-Bin2,OUYANG Yong1
1.School of Computer Science,Hubei University of Technology,Wuhan 430068 2.School of Civil Engineering and Construction,Hubei University of Technology,Wuhan 430068
Abstract The logic model of argumentation is the topic in many fields such as philosophy, logic, and artificial intelligence, and is widely applied in many areas such as non-monotonic reasoning, legal reasoning, group decision-making and interaction of multi-agent system (MAS). In this paper, the basic concepts and logic models of argumentation are firstly expounded. Then the present researches both on modeling for argumentation and on modeling with argumentation are summarized, and the characteristics and problems of current influential logic models of argumentation are analyzed. Finally, the existing challenges and potential research directions of the logic model of argumentation are pointed out.
[1] Prakken H, Vreeswijk G A W. Encoding Schemes for a Discourse Support System for Legal Argument // Proc of the ECAI Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument. Lyon, France, 2002: 31-39 [2] Janssen T. Toulmin-Based Logic in Policy Decision Making // Miramond M, Gauffre P L, Behesti R, et al, eds. A Critical Review of the Application of Advanced Technologies in Architecture, Civil and Urban Engineering. Paris, France: Europia Productions, 1995: 315-332 [3] Rowe G, Macagno F, Reed C, et al. Araucaria as a Tool for Diagramming Arguments in Teaching and Studying Philosophy. Teaching Philosophy, 2006, 29(2): 111-124 [4] Tweed C. Supporting Argumentation Practices in Urban Planning and Design. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 1998, 22(4): 351-363 [5] Dung P M. On the Acceptability of Arguments and Its Fundamental Role in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Logic Programming and n-Person Games. Artificial Intelligence, 1995, 77(2): 321-357 [6] Alvarado S E, Dyer M G. Analogy Recognition and Comprehension in Editorials // Proc of the 7th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Irvine, USA, 1985: 228-235 [7] Amgoud L, Serrurier M. Agents That Argue and Explain Classifications. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agents Systems, 2008,16(2): 187-209 [8] Amgoud L, Prade H. Using Arguments for Making and Explaining Decisions. Artificial Intelligence, 2009, 173(3/4): 413-436 [9] Amgoud L, Cayrol C. Inferring from Inconsistency in Preference-Based Argumentation Frameworks. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 2002, 29(2): 125-169 [10] Amgoud L, Kaci S. An Argumentation Framework for Merging Conflicting Knowledge Bases. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 2007, 45(2): 321-340 [11] Reed C, Grasso F. Recent Advances in Computational Models of Natural Argument. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 2007, 22(1): 1-15 [12] Hamblin C. Fallacies. London, UK: Methuen, 1970 [13] Rowe G, Reed C. Translating Wigmore Diagrams // Proc of the Conference on Computational Models of Argument. Liverpool, UK, 2006: 171-182 [14] Toulmin S E. The Uses of Argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1958 [15] OKeefe D J. Two Concepts of Argument. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 1977, 13: 121-128 [16] Kunz W, Rittel H W J. Issues as Elements of Information Systems. Berkeley, USA: University of California, 1970 [17] Gordon T F, Prakken H, Walton D. The Carneades Model of Argument and Burden of Proof. Artificial Intelligence, 2007, 171(10): 875-896 [18] Reiter R. A Logic for Default Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 1980, 13(1): 81-132 [19] Rich E, Knight K. Artificial Intelligence. 2nd Edition. New York, USA: McGraw Hill, 1991 [20] Doyle J. A Truth Maintenance System. Artificial Intelligence, 1979, 12(3): 231-272 [21] Pollock J L. A Theory of Defeasible Reasoning. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 1991, 6: 33-54 [22] McCarthy J. Applications of Circumscription to Formalizing Commonsense Knowledge. Artificial Intelligence, 1986, 28(1): 89-118 [23] Lin F, Shoham Y. Argument Systems: A Uniform Basis for Nonmonotonic Reasoning // Proc of the 1st International Conference on Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. San Francisco, USA, 1989: 245-255 [24] Simari G R, Loui R P. A Mathematical Treatment of Defeasible Reasoning and Its Implementation. Artificial Intelligence, 1992, 53(2/3): 125-157 [25] Prakken H, Sartor G. A Dialectical Model of Assessing Conflicting Arguments in Legal Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 1996, 4(3/4): 331-368 [26] Vreeswijk G A W. Abstract Argumentation Systems. Artificial Intelligence, 1992, 90(1/2): 225-279 [27] Governatori G, Maher M J, Antoniou G, et al. Argumentation Semantics for Defeasible Logic. Journal of Logic and Computation, 2004, 14(5): 675-702 [28] Amgoud L, Cayrol C. A Reasoning Model Based on the Production of Acceptable Arguments. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 2002, 34(1/2/3): 197-215 [29] Bench-Capon T J M. Persuasion in Practical Argument Using Value-Based Argumentation Frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation, 2003, 13(3): 429-448 [30] Caminada M, Amgoud L. On the Evaluation of Argumentation Formalisms. Artificial Intelligence, 2007, 171(5/6): 286-310 [31] Amgoud L, Maudet N, Parsons S. Modelling Dialogues Using Argumentation // Proc of the 4th International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems. Boston, USA, 2000: 7-12 [32] Prakken H. An Abstract Framework for Argumentation with Structured Arguments [EB/OL]. [2005-05-18]. http://www.cs.uu.nl/research/techreps/repo/CS-2009/2009-2019.pdf [33] Lowe D G. Co-Operative Structuring of Information: The Representation of Reasoning and Debate. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 1985, 23(2): 97-111 [34] Janssen T, Sage A P. Group Decision Support Using Toulmin Argument Structures // Proc of the IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics. Beijing, China, 1996, Ⅳ: 2704-2709 [35] Conklin J, Bergman M. gIBIS: A Hypertext Tool for Exploratory Policy Discussion // Proc of the ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work. Portland, USA, 1988: 140-152 [36] Karacapilidis N, Papadias D. Computer Supported Argumentation and Collaborative Decision Making: The HERMES System. Information Systems, 2001, 26(4): 259-277 [37] Tweed C. An Intelligent Authoring and Information System for Regulatory Codes and Standards. International Journal of Construction Information Technology, 1994, 2(2): 53-63 [38] Tweed C. An Information System to Support Environmental Decision Making and Debate // Brandon P S, Lombardi P L, Bentivegna V, eds. Evaluation of the Built Environment for Sustainability. London, UK: E FN Spon, 1997: 67-81 [39] Gordon T. Visualizing Carneades Argument Graphs. Law, Probability Risk, 2007, 6(1/2/3/4): 109-117 [40] Reed C A, Rowe G W A. Araucaria: Software for Argument Analysis, Diagramming and Representation. International Journal on Artificial Intelligence Tools, 2004, 14(3/4): 961-980 [41] Suthers D, Weiner A, Connelly J, et al. Belvedere: Engaging Students in Critical Discussion of Science and Public Policy Issues // Proc of the 7th World Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education. Washington, USA, 1995: 266-273 [42] van Gelder T. Argument Mapping with Reason!Able [EB/OL]. [2002-07-29]. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.115.7860rep=rep1type=pdf [43] Schank P, Ranney M. Improved Reasoning with Convince Me // Proc of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Denver, USA, 1995: 276-277 [44] Sierra C, Jennings N R, Noriega P, et al. A Framework for Argumentation-Based Negotiation // Proc of the 4th International Workshop on Agent Theories, Architectures and Languages. Rhode Island, USA, 1997: 177-192 [45] Parsons S, Sklar E. How Agents Revise Their Beliefs after an Argumentation-Based Dialogue // Proc of the 2nd International Workshop on Argumentation in Multiagent Systems. Utrecht, Netherlands, 2005: 297-312 [46] Okuno K, Takahashi K. Argumentation System with Changes of an Agents Knowledge Base // Proc of the 21st International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence Table of Contents. Pasadena, USA, 2009: 226-232 [47] Amgoud L, Prade H. Using Arguments for Making Decisions: A Possibilistic Logic Approach // Proc of the 20th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence. Banff, Canada, 2004: 10-17 [48] Amgoud L, Cayrol C. Inferring from Inconsistency in preference-Based Argumentation frameworks. International Journal of Automated Reasoning, 2002, 29(2): 125-169 [49] Kakas A, Maudet N, Moraitis P. Modular Representation of Agent Interaction Rules through Argumentation. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 2005, 11(2): 189-206 [50] Modgil S. An Argumentation Based Semantics for Agent Reasoning // Proc of the Workshop on Languages, Methodologies and Development Tools for Multi-Agent Systems. Durham, UK, 2007: 37-53 [51] Paglieri F, Castelfranchi C. Revising Beliefs through Arguments: Bridging the Gap between Argumentation and Belief Revision in MAS // Proc of the 1st International Workshop on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems. New York, USA, 2004: 78-94 [52] Paglieri F. Data-Oriented Belief Revision: Towards a Unified Theory of Epistemic Processing // Proc of the 2nd European Starting AI Researcher Symposium. Valencia, Spain, 2004: 179-190
2010, Vol. 23 
