argumentation logics lecture 1: introduction henry prakken chongqing may 26, 2010
Post on 21-Dec-2015
216 views
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Argumentation Logics Lecture 1: Introduction Henry Prakken Chongqing May 26, 2010](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d6b5503460f94a4a83d/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Argumentation LogicsLecture 1:
Introduction
Henry PrakkenChongqing
May 26, 2010
![Page 2: Argumentation Logics Lecture 1: Introduction Henry Prakken Chongqing May 26, 2010](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d6b5503460f94a4a83d/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Nonmonotonic logic Standard logic is monotonic:
If S |- and S S’ then S’ |- But commonsense reasoning is often nonmonotonic:
John is an adult, Adults are usually employed, so John is presumably employed
But suppose also that John is a student and students are usually not employed …
We often reason with rules that have exceptions We apply the general rule if we have no evidence of
exceptions But must retract our conclusion if we learn evidence of
an exception
![Page 3: Argumentation Logics Lecture 1: Introduction Henry Prakken Chongqing May 26, 2010](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d6b5503460f94a4a83d/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Sources of nonmonotonicity Empirical generalisations
Adults are usually employed, birds can typically fly, Chinese usually do not like coffee, …
Conflicting information sources Experts who disagree, witnesses who contradict each other,
conflicting sensory input, … Alternative explanations
The grass is wet so it has rained / but the sprinkler was on Conflicting goals
We should raise taxes to increase productivity, which is good / but lower taxes increase inequality, which is bad
Exceptions to legal rules When a father dies, his son can inherit, except when the son killed
the father Exceptions to moral principles
Normally one should not lie, except when a lie can save lives …
![Page 4: Argumentation Logics Lecture 1: Introduction Henry Prakken Chongqing May 26, 2010](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d6b5503460f94a4a83d/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Some nonmonotonic logics Default logic (Ray Reiter) Circumscription (John McCarthy) Logic programming (Robert
Kowalski) … Argumentation logics
![Page 5: Argumentation Logics Lecture 1: Introduction Henry Prakken Chongqing May 26, 2010](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d6b5503460f94a4a83d/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Argumentation as a nonmonotonic logic
Nonmonotonic logic deals with: Rules and exceptions Conflicts and their resolution
Both can be modelled as argumentation: General rule gives rise to argument,
exception gives rise to counterargument Exception defeats general rule
Conflicts give rise to argument and counterargument
Conflicts are resolved with preferences
![Page 6: Argumentation Logics Lecture 1: Introduction Henry Prakken Chongqing May 26, 2010](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d6b5503460f94a4a83d/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Some history John Pollock (1987-1995) Ron Loui (1987)
With Guillermo Simari (1992) Gerard Vreeswijk (1993,1997) Phan Minh Dung (1995) …
![Page 7: Argumentation Logics Lecture 1: Introduction Henry Prakken Chongqing May 26, 2010](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d6b5503460f94a4a83d/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
We should lower taxes
Lower taxes increase productivity
Increased productivity is good
![Page 8: Argumentation Logics Lecture 1: Introduction Henry Prakken Chongqing May 26, 2010](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d6b5503460f94a4a83d/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
We should lower taxes
Lower taxes increase productivity
Increased productivity is good
We should not lower taxes
Lower taxes increase inequality
Increased inequality is bad
![Page 9: Argumentation Logics Lecture 1: Introduction Henry Prakken Chongqing May 26, 2010](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d6b5503460f94a4a83d/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
We should lower taxes
Lower taxes increase productivity
Increased productivity is good
We should not lower taxes
Lower taxes increase inequality
Increased inequality is bad
Lower taxes do not increase productivity
USA lowered taxes but productivity decreased
![Page 10: Argumentation Logics Lecture 1: Introduction Henry Prakken Chongqing May 26, 2010](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d6b5503460f94a4a83d/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
We should lower taxes
Lower taxes increase productivity
Increased productivity is good
We should not lower taxes
Lower taxes increase inequality
Increased inequality is bad
Lower taxes do not increase productivity
Prof. P says that …
USA lowered taxes but productivity decreased
![Page 11: Argumentation Logics Lecture 1: Introduction Henry Prakken Chongqing May 26, 2010](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d6b5503460f94a4a83d/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
We should lower taxes
Lower taxes increase productivity
Increased productivity is good
We should not lower taxes
Lower taxes increase inequality
Increased inequality is bad
Lower taxes do not increase productivity
Prof. P says that …
Prof. P has political ambitions
People with political ambitions are not objective
Prof. P is not objective
USA lowered taxes but productivity decreased
![Page 12: Argumentation Logics Lecture 1: Introduction Henry Prakken Chongqing May 26, 2010](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d6b5503460f94a4a83d/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
We should lower taxes
Lower taxes increase productivity
Increased productivity is good
We should not lower taxes
Lower taxes increase inequality
Increased inequality is bad
Lower taxes do not increase productivity
Prof. P says that …
Prof. P has political ambitions
People with political ambitions are not objective
Prof. P is not objective
USA lowered taxes but productivity decreased
![Page 13: Argumentation Logics Lecture 1: Introduction Henry Prakken Chongqing May 26, 2010](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d6b5503460f94a4a83d/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
We should lower taxes
Lower taxes increase productivity
Increased productivity is good
We should not lower taxes
Lower taxes increase inequality
Increased inequality is bad
Lower taxes do not increase productivity
Prof. P says that …
Prof. P has political ambitions
People with political ambitions are not objective
Prof. P is not objective
Increased inequality is good
Increased inequality stimulates competition
Competition is good
USA lowered taxes but productivity decreased
![Page 14: Argumentation Logics Lecture 1: Introduction Henry Prakken Chongqing May 26, 2010](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d6b5503460f94a4a83d/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
We should lower taxes
Lower taxes increase productivity
Increased productivity is good
We should not lower taxes
Lower taxes increase inequality
Increased inequality is bad
Lower taxes do not increase productivity
Prof. P says that …
Prof. P has political ambitions
People with political ambitions are not objective
Prof. P is not objective
Increased inequality is good
Increased inequality stimulates competition
Competition is good
USA lowered taxes but productivity decreased
![Page 15: Argumentation Logics Lecture 1: Introduction Henry Prakken Chongqing May 26, 2010](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d6b5503460f94a4a83d/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
A B
C D E
![Page 16: Argumentation Logics Lecture 1: Introduction Henry Prakken Chongqing May 26, 2010](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d6b5503460f94a4a83d/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Overview of this course Abstract argumentation (Lectures 1-4)
Semantics (Lectures 1-3) Labelling-based Extension-based
Argument games (Lecture 4) Rule-based argumentation (Lectures 5-7)
Structure of arguments, (Lecture 5) Attack, defeat, preferences (Lecture 6) Self-defeat, rationality postulates (Lecture 7)
![Page 17: Argumentation Logics Lecture 1: Introduction Henry Prakken Chongqing May 26, 2010](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d6b5503460f94a4a83d/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Status of arguments: abstract semantics (Dung 1995)
INPUT: an abstract argumentation theory AAT = Args,Defeat
OUTPUT: An assignment of the status ‘in’ or ‘out’ to all members of Args So: semantics specifies conditions for
labeling the ‘argument graph’. Should capture reinstatement:
A B C
![Page 18: Argumentation Logics Lecture 1: Introduction Henry Prakken Chongqing May 26, 2010](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d6b5503460f94a4a83d/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Possible labeling conditions
Every argument is either ‘in’ or ‘out’.1. An argument is ‘in’ iff all arguments defeating it are
‘out’.2. An argument is ‘out’ iff it is defeated by an argument
that is ‘in’.
Works fine with:
But not with:
A B C
A B
![Page 19: Argumentation Logics Lecture 1: Introduction Henry Prakken Chongqing May 26, 2010](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d6b5503460f94a4a83d/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Two solutions
Change conditions so that always a unique status assignment results
Use multiple status assignments:
and
A B C
A BA B
A B C
A B
![Page 20: Argumentation Logics Lecture 1: Introduction Henry Prakken Chongqing May 26, 2010](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d6b5503460f94a4a83d/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Unique status assignments: Grounded semantics (informal)
The endpoint (or union) of a sequence s.t.: S0: the empty set Si+1: Si + all arguments acceptable wrt Si ...
A is acceptable wrt S (or S defends A) if all defeaters of A are defeated by S S defeats A if an argument in S defeats A
![Page 21: Argumentation Logics Lecture 1: Introduction Henry Prakken Chongqing May 26, 2010](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d6b5503460f94a4a83d/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
A B
C D E
Is B, D or E defended by S1?Is B or E defended by S2?
![Page 22: Argumentation Logics Lecture 1: Introduction Henry Prakken Chongqing May 26, 2010](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d6b5503460f94a4a83d/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Grounded semantics (formal 1)
Let AAT be an abstract argumentation theory F0
AAT = Fi+1
AAT = {A Args | A is acceptable wrt Fi
AAT} F∞
AAT = ∞i=0 (Fi+1
AAT)
Problem: does not always contain all intuitively justified arguments.
![Page 23: Argumentation Logics Lecture 1: Introduction Henry Prakken Chongqing May 26, 2010](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d6b5503460f94a4a83d/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Grounded semantics (formal 2)
Let AAT = Args,Defeat and S Args FAAT(S) = {A Args | A is acceptable wrt S}
Since FAAT is monotonic (and since ...), FAAT has a least fixed point. Now:
The grounded extension of AAT is the least fixed point of FAAT
An argument is (w.r.t. grounded semantics) justified on the basis of AAT if it is in the grounded extension of AAT.
Proposition 4.2.4 (AAT implicit): A F∞ A is justified If every argument has at most a finite number of
defeaters, then A F∞AT A is justified
![Page 24: Argumentation Logics Lecture 1: Introduction Henry Prakken Chongqing May 26, 2010](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d6b5503460f94a4a83d/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Acceptability status with unique status assignments
A is justified if A is In A is overruled if A is Out and A is defeated by
an argument that is In A is defensible otherwise
![Page 25: Argumentation Logics Lecture 1: Introduction Henry Prakken Chongqing May 26, 2010](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d6b5503460f94a4a83d/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Self-defeating arguments
Intuition: should always be overruled (?) Problem: in grounded semantics they are not
always overruled Solution: several possibilities (but intuitions
must be refined!)
![Page 26: Argumentation Logics Lecture 1: Introduction Henry Prakken Chongqing May 26, 2010](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d6b5503460f94a4a83d/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
A problem(?) with grounded semantics
We have: We want(?):
A B
C
D
A B
C
D
![Page 27: Argumentation Logics Lecture 1: Introduction Henry Prakken Chongqing May 26, 2010](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d6b5503460f94a4a83d/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
A problem(?) with grounded semantics
A B
C
D
A = Frederic Michaud is French since he has a French nameB = Frederic Michaud is Dutch since he is a marathon skaterC = F.M. likes the EU since he is European (assuming he is not Dutch or French)D = F.M. does not like the EU since he looks like a person who does not like the EU
![Page 28: Argumentation Logics Lecture 1: Introduction Henry Prakken Chongqing May 26, 2010](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d6b5503460f94a4a83d/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
A problem(?) with grounded semantics
A B
C
D
A = Frederic Michaud is French since Alice says soB = Frederic Michaud is Dutch since Bob says soC = F.M. likes the EU since he is European (assuming he is not Dutch or French)D = F.M. does not like the EU since he looks like a person who does not like the EU
E
E = Alice and Bob are unreliable since they contradict each other
![Page 29: Argumentation Logics Lecture 1: Introduction Henry Prakken Chongqing May 26, 2010](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d6b5503460f94a4a83d/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Multiple labellings
A B
C
D
A B
C
D