argumentation henry prakken siks basic course learning and reasoning may 26 th, 2009
Post on 20-Dec-2015
218 views
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Argumentation Henry Prakken SIKS Basic Course Learning and Reasoning May 26 th, 2009](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d535503460f94a2f57d/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Argumentation
Henry PrakkenSIKS Basic Course
Learning and ReasoningMay 26th, 2009
![Page 2: Argumentation Henry Prakken SIKS Basic Course Learning and Reasoning May 26 th, 2009](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d535503460f94a2f57d/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Why do agents need argumentation?
For their internal reasoning Reasoning about beliefs, goals, intentions etc often is
defeasible For their interaction with other agents
Information exchange, negotiation, collaboration, …
![Page 3: Argumentation Henry Prakken SIKS Basic Course Learning and Reasoning May 26 th, 2009](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d535503460f94a2f57d/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Overview
Inference (logic) Abstract argumentation Rule-based argumentation
Dialogue
![Page 4: Argumentation Henry Prakken SIKS Basic Course Learning and Reasoning May 26 th, 2009](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d535503460f94a2f57d/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Part 1:Inference
![Page 5: Argumentation Henry Prakken SIKS Basic Course Learning and Reasoning May 26 th, 2009](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d535503460f94a2f57d/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
We should lower taxes
Lower taxes increase productivity
Increased productivity is good
![Page 6: Argumentation Henry Prakken SIKS Basic Course Learning and Reasoning May 26 th, 2009](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d535503460f94a2f57d/html5/thumbnails/6.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 7: Argumentation Henry Prakken SIKS Basic Course Learning and Reasoning May 26 th, 2009](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d535503460f94a2f57d/html5/thumbnails/7.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 8: Argumentation Henry Prakken SIKS Basic Course Learning and Reasoning May 26 th, 2009](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d535503460f94a2f57d/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
Lower taxes do not increase productivity
Prof. P says that …
USA lowered taxes but productivity decreased
![Page 9: Argumentation Henry Prakken SIKS Basic Course Learning and Reasoning May 26 th, 2009](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d535503460f94a2f57d/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
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 10: Argumentation Henry Prakken SIKS Basic Course Learning and Reasoning May 26 th, 2009](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d535503460f94a2f57d/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 …
Prof. P has political ambitions
People with political ambitions are not objective
Prof. P is not objective
USA lowered taxes but productivity decreased
![Page 11: Argumentation Henry Prakken SIKS Basic Course Learning and Reasoning May 26 th, 2009](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d535503460f94a2f57d/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
Increased inequality is good
Increased inequality stimulates competition
Competition is good
USA lowered taxes but productivity decreased
![Page 12: Argumentation Henry Prakken SIKS Basic Course Learning and Reasoning May 26 th, 2009](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d535503460f94a2f57d/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Sources of conflict Default generalisations Conflicting information sources Alternative explanations Conflicting goals, interests Conflicting normative, moral
opinions …
![Page 13: Argumentation Henry Prakken SIKS Basic Course Learning and Reasoning May 26 th, 2009](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d535503460f94a2f57d/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Application areas Medical diagnosis and treatment Legal reasoning
Interpretation Evidence / crime investigation
Intelligence Decision making Policy design …
![Page 14: Argumentation Henry Prakken SIKS Basic Course Learning and Reasoning May 26 th, 2009](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d535503460f94a2f57d/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 Henry Prakken SIKS Basic Course Learning and Reasoning May 26 th, 2009](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d535503460f94a2f57d/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
A B
C D E
![Page 16: Argumentation Henry Prakken SIKS Basic Course Learning and Reasoning May 26 th, 2009](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d535503460f94a2f57d/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Status of arguments: abstract semantics (Dung 1995)
INPUT: a pair 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 17: Argumentation Henry Prakken SIKS Basic Course Learning and Reasoning May 26 th, 2009](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d535503460f94a2f57d/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Possible labeling conditions
Every argument is either ‘in’ or ‘out’.1. An argument is ‘in’ if all arguments
defeating it are ‘out’.2. An argument is ‘out’ if it is defeated by an
argument that is ‘in’.
Works fine with:
But not with:
A B C
A B
![Page 18: Argumentation Henry Prakken SIKS Basic Course Learning and Reasoning May 26 th, 2009](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d535503460f94a2f57d/html5/thumbnails/18.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 19: Argumentation Henry Prakken SIKS Basic Course Learning and Reasoning May 26 th, 2009](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d535503460f94a2f57d/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Unique status assignments
Grounded semantics (Dung 1995): S0: the empty set Si+1: Si + all arguments defended by
Si ...
(S defends A if all defeaters of A are defeated by a member of S)
![Page 20: Argumentation Henry Prakken SIKS Basic Course Learning and Reasoning May 26 th, 2009](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d535503460f94a2f57d/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
A B
C D E
Is B, D or E defended by S1?Is B or E defended by S2?
![Page 21: Argumentation Henry Prakken SIKS Basic Course Learning and Reasoning May 26 th, 2009](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d535503460f94a2f57d/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
A problem(?) with grounded semantics
We have: We want(?):
A B
C
D
A B
C
D
![Page 22: Argumentation Henry Prakken SIKS Basic Course Learning and Reasoning May 26 th, 2009](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d535503460f94a2f57d/html5/thumbnails/22.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 23: Argumentation Henry Prakken SIKS Basic Course Learning and Reasoning May 26 th, 2009](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d535503460f94a2f57d/html5/thumbnails/23.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 24: Argumentation Henry Prakken SIKS Basic Course Learning and Reasoning May 26 th, 2009](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d535503460f94a2f57d/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Multiple labellings
A B
C
D
A B
C
D
![Page 25: Argumentation Henry Prakken SIKS Basic Course Learning and Reasoning May 26 th, 2009](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d535503460f94a2f57d/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Status assignments (1)
Given Args,Defeat: A status assignment is a partition of Args
into sets In and Out such that:1. An argument is in In if all arguments
defeating it are in Out.2. An argument is in Out if it is defeated by an
argument that is in In.
A B
C
![Page 26: Argumentation Henry Prakken SIKS Basic Course Learning and Reasoning May 26 th, 2009](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d535503460f94a2f57d/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Status assignments (1)
Given Args,Defeat: A status assignment is a partition of Args
into sets In and Out such that:1. An argument is in In if all arguments
defeating it are in Out.2. An argument is in Out if it is defeated by an
argument that is in In.
A B
C
![Page 27: Argumentation Henry Prakken SIKS Basic Course Learning and Reasoning May 26 th, 2009](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d535503460f94a2f57d/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Status assignments (1)
Given Args,Defeat: A status assignment is a partition of Args
into sets In and Out such that:1. An argument is in In if all arguments
defeating it are in Out.2. An argument is in Out if it is defeated by an
argument that is in In.
A B
C
![Page 28: Argumentation Henry Prakken SIKS Basic Course Learning and Reasoning May 26 th, 2009](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d535503460f94a2f57d/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Status assignments (1)
Given Args,Defeat: A status assignment is a partition of Args
into sets In and Out such that:1. An argument is in In if all arguments
defeating it are in Out.2. An argument is in Out if it is defeated by an
argument that is in In.
A B
C
![Page 29: Argumentation Henry Prakken SIKS Basic Course Learning and Reasoning May 26 th, 2009](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d535503460f94a2f57d/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Status assignments (1)
Given Args,Defeat: A status assignment is a partition of Args
into sets In and Out such that:1. An argument is in In if all arguments
defeating it are in Out.2. An argument is in Out if it is defeated by an
argument that is in In.
A B
C
![Page 30: Argumentation Henry Prakken SIKS Basic Course Learning and Reasoning May 26 th, 2009](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d535503460f94a2f57d/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Status assignments (2) Given Args,Defeat: A status assignment is a partition of Args into sets In, Out
and Undecided such that:1. An argument is in In if all arguments defeating it are in Out.2. An argument is in Out if it is defeated by an argument that is in
In.
A status assignment is stable if Undecided = . In is a stable extension
A status assignment is preferred if Undecided is -minimal. In is a preferred extension
A status assignment is grounded if Undecided is -maximal. In is the grounded extension
![Page 31: Argumentation Henry Prakken SIKS Basic Course Learning and Reasoning May 26 th, 2009](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d535503460f94a2f57d/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Dung’s original definitions Given Args,Defeat, S Args, A Args: S is conflict-free if no member of S defeats a member of
S S defends A if all defeaters of A are defeated by a
member of S S is admissible if it is conflict-free and defends all its
members S is a preferred extension if it is -maximally admissible S is a stable extension if it is conflict-free and defeats all
arguments outside it S is the grounded extension if S is the -smallest set
such that A S iff S defends A.
![Page 32: Argumentation Henry Prakken SIKS Basic Course Learning and Reasoning May 26 th, 2009](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d535503460f94a2f57d/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
A B
C D E
S defends A if all defeaters of A are defeated by a member of S
S is admissible if it is conflict-free and defends all its members
Admissible?
![Page 33: Argumentation Henry Prakken SIKS Basic Course Learning and Reasoning May 26 th, 2009](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d535503460f94a2f57d/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
A B
C D E
S defends A if all defeaters of A are defeated by a member of S
S is admissible if it is conflict-free and defends all its members
Admissible?
![Page 34: Argumentation Henry Prakken SIKS Basic Course Learning and Reasoning May 26 th, 2009](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d535503460f94a2f57d/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
A B
C D E
S defends A if all defeaters of A are defeated by a member of S
S is admissible if it is conflict-free and defends all its members
Admissible?
![Page 35: Argumentation Henry Prakken SIKS Basic Course Learning and Reasoning May 26 th, 2009](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d535503460f94a2f57d/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
A B
C D E
S defends A if all defeaters of A are defeated by a member of S
S is admissible if it is conflict-free and defends all its members
Admissible?
![Page 36: Argumentation Henry Prakken SIKS Basic Course Learning and Reasoning May 26 th, 2009](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d535503460f94a2f57d/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
A B
C D E
S defends A if all defeaters of A are defeated by a member of S
S is admissible if it is conflict-free and defends all its members
Preferred?S is preferred if it is maximally admissible
![Page 37: Argumentation Henry Prakken SIKS Basic Course Learning and Reasoning May 26 th, 2009](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d535503460f94a2f57d/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
A B
C D E
S defends A if all defeaters of A are defeated by a member of S
S is admissible if it is conflict-free and defends all its members
Preferred?S is preferred if it is maximally admissible
![Page 38: Argumentation Henry Prakken SIKS Basic Course Learning and Reasoning May 26 th, 2009](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d535503460f94a2f57d/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
A B
C D E
S defends A if all defeaters of A are defeated by a member of S
S is admissible if it is conflict-free and defends all its members
Preferred?S is preferred if it is maximally admissible
![Page 39: Argumentation Henry Prakken SIKS Basic Course Learning and Reasoning May 26 th, 2009](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d535503460f94a2f57d/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
A B
C D E
S defends A if all defeaters of A are defeated by a member of S
S is admissible if it is conflict-free and defends all its members
Grounded?S is groundeded if it is the smallest set s.t. A S iff S defends A
![Page 40: Argumentation Henry Prakken SIKS Basic Course Learning and Reasoning May 26 th, 2009](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d535503460f94a2f57d/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
A B
C D E
S defends A if all defeaters of A are defeated by a member of S
S is admissible if it is conflict-free and defends all its members
Grounded?S is groundeded if it is the smallest set s.t. A S iff S defends A
![Page 41: Argumentation Henry Prakken SIKS Basic Course Learning and Reasoning May 26 th, 2009](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d535503460f94a2f57d/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
Properties The grounded extension is unique Every stable extension is preferred
(but not v.v.) There exists at least one preferred
extension The grounded extension is a subset
of all preferred and stable extensions
…
![Page 42: Argumentation Henry Prakken SIKS Basic Course Learning and Reasoning May 26 th, 2009](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d535503460f94a2f57d/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
The ‘ultimate’ status of arguments (and conclusions)
With grounded semantics: A is justified if A g.e. A is overruled if A g.e. and A is defeated by g.e. A is defensible otherwise
With preferred semantics: A is justified if A p.e for all p.e. A is defensible if A p.e. for some but not all p.e. A is overruled otherwise (?)
In all semantics: is justified if is the conclusion of some justified
argument is defensible if is not justified and is the
conclusion of some defensible argument
![Page 43: Argumentation Henry Prakken SIKS Basic Course Learning and Reasoning May 26 th, 2009](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d535503460f94a2f57d/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
The status of arguments: proof theory
Argument games between proponent and opponent: Proponent starts with an argument Then each party replies with a suitable
counterargument Possibly backtracking A winning criterion
E.g. the other player cannot move An argument is (dialectically) provable iff
proponent has a winning strategy in a game for it.
![Page 44: Argumentation Henry Prakken SIKS Basic Course Learning and Reasoning May 26 th, 2009](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d535503460f94a2f57d/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
The G-game for grounded semantics:
A sound and complete game: Each move replies to previous move Proponent does not repeat moves Proponent moves strict defeaters, opponent
moves defeaters A player wins iff the other player cannot move
Result: A is in the grounded extension iff proponent has a winning strategy in a game about A.
![Page 45: Argumentation Henry Prakken SIKS Basic Course Learning and Reasoning May 26 th, 2009](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d535503460f94a2f57d/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
A game tree
A
B
C
D
E
F
![Page 46: Argumentation Henry Prakken SIKS Basic Course Learning and Reasoning May 26 th, 2009](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d535503460f94a2f57d/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
A game tree
P: AA
B
C
D
E
F
![Page 47: Argumentation Henry Prakken SIKS Basic Course Learning and Reasoning May 26 th, 2009](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d535503460f94a2f57d/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
A game tree
P: AA
B
C
D
E
F
O: F
![Page 48: Argumentation Henry Prakken SIKS Basic Course Learning and Reasoning May 26 th, 2009](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d535503460f94a2f57d/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
A game tree
P: AA
B
C
D
E
F
O: F
P: E
![Page 49: Argumentation Henry Prakken SIKS Basic Course Learning and Reasoning May 26 th, 2009](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d535503460f94a2f57d/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
A game tree
P: A
O: B
A
B
C
D
E
F
O: F
P: E
![Page 50: Argumentation Henry Prakken SIKS Basic Course Learning and Reasoning May 26 th, 2009](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d535503460f94a2f57d/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
A game tree
P: A
O: B
P: C
A
B
C
D
E
F
O: F
P: E
![Page 51: Argumentation Henry Prakken SIKS Basic Course Learning and Reasoning May 26 th, 2009](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d535503460f94a2f57d/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
A game tree
P: A
O: B
P: C
O: D
A
B
C
D
E
F
O: F
P: E
![Page 52: Argumentation Henry Prakken SIKS Basic Course Learning and Reasoning May 26 th, 2009](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d535503460f94a2f57d/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
A game tree
P: A
O: B
P: C P: E
O: D
A
B
C
D
E
F
O: F
P: E
![Page 53: Argumentation Henry Prakken SIKS Basic Course Learning and Reasoning May 26 th, 2009](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d535503460f94a2f57d/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
The structure of arguments: current accounts
Assumption-based approaches (Dung-Kowalski-Toni, Besnard & Hunter, …)
K = theory A = assumptions, - is conflict relation on A R = inference rules (strict) An argument for p is a set A’ A such that A’ K |-R p Arguments attack each other on their assumptions
Rule-based approaches (Pollock, Vreeswijk, DeLP, Prakken & Sartor, Defeasible Logic, …)
K = theory R = inference rules (strict and defeasible) K yields an argument for p if K |-R p Arguments attack each other on applications of defeasible
inference rules
![Page 54: Argumentation Henry Prakken SIKS Basic Course Learning and Reasoning May 26 th, 2009](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d535503460f94a2f57d/html5/thumbnails/54.jpg)
Aspic system: overview
Argument structure based on Vreeswijk (1997) ≈ Trees where
Nodes are wff of logical language L closed under negation
Links are applications of inference rules Strict (1, ..., 1 ); or Defeasible (1, ..., 1 )
Reasoning starts from knowledge base K L Defeat based on Pollock Argument acceptability based on Dung (1995)
![Page 55: Argumentation Henry Prakken SIKS Basic Course Learning and Reasoning May 26 th, 2009](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d535503460f94a2f57d/html5/thumbnails/55.jpg)
ASPIC system: structure of arguments
An argument A is: if K with
Conc(A) = {} Sub(A) =
A1, ..., An if there is a strict inference rule Conc(A1), ..., Conc(An)
Conc(A) = {} Sub(A) = Sub(A1) ... Sub(An) {A}
A1, ..., An if there is a defeasible inference rule Conc(A1), ..., Conc(An)
Conc(A) = {} Sub(A) = Sub(A1) ... Sub(An) {A}
A is strict if all members of Sub(A) apply strict rules; else A is defeasible
![Page 56: Argumentation Henry Prakken SIKS Basic Course Learning and Reasoning May 26 th, 2009](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d535503460f94a2f57d/html5/thumbnails/56.jpg)
Q1 Q2
P
R1 R2
R1, R2 Q2
Q1, Q2 P
Q1,R1,R2 K
![Page 57: Argumentation Henry Prakken SIKS Basic Course Learning and Reasoning May 26 th, 2009](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d535503460f94a2f57d/html5/thumbnails/57.jpg)
Domain-specific vs. inference general inference rules
R1: Bird Flies R2: Penguin Bird Penguin K
R1: , Strict rules: all deductively valid inference rules Bird Flies K Penguin Bird K Penguin K
Flies
Bird
Penguin
Flies
Bird Bird Flies
Penguin Penguin Bird
![Page 58: Argumentation Henry Prakken SIKS Basic Course Learning and Reasoning May 26 th, 2009](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d535503460f94a2f57d/html5/thumbnails/58.jpg)
ASPIC system: attack and defeat
≥ is a preference ordering between arguments such that if A is strict and B is defeasible then A > B
A rebuts B if Conc(A) = ¬Conc(B’ ) for some B’ Sub(B); and B’ applies a defeasible rule; and not B’ > A
A undercuts B if Conc(A) = ¬B’ for some B’ Sub(B); and B’ applies a defeasible rule
A defeats B if A rebuts or undercuts B
Naming convention implicit
![Page 59: Argumentation Henry Prakken SIKS Basic Course Learning and Reasoning May 26 th, 2009](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d535503460f94a2f57d/html5/thumbnails/59.jpg)
Q1 Q2
P
R1 R2
Q2
V 1 V 2
V 3
S 2
T 1 T 2
![Page 60: Argumentation Henry Prakken SIKS Basic Course Learning and Reasoning May 26 th, 2009](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d535503460f94a2f57d/html5/thumbnails/60.jpg)
Argument acceptability Dung-style semantics and proof
theory directly apply!
![Page 61: Argumentation Henry Prakken SIKS Basic Course Learning and Reasoning May 26 th, 2009](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d535503460f94a2f57d/html5/thumbnails/61.jpg)
Additional properties(cf. Caminada & Amgoud 2007)
Let E be any stable, preferred or grounded extension:
1. If B Sub(A) and A E then B E2. If the strict rules RS are closed
under contraposition, then {| = Conc(A) for some A E } is
closed under RS; consistent if K is consistent
![Page 62: Argumentation Henry Prakken SIKS Basic Course Learning and Reasoning May 26 th, 2009](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d535503460f94a2f57d/html5/thumbnails/62.jpg)
Argument schemes
Many arguments (and attacks) follow patterns. Much work in argumentation theory (Perelman,
Toulmin, Walton, ...) Argument schemes Critical questions
Recent applications in AI (& Law)
![Page 63: Argumentation Henry Prakken SIKS Basic Course Learning and Reasoning May 26 th, 2009](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d535503460f94a2f57d/html5/thumbnails/63.jpg)
Argument schemes: general form
But also critical questions Negative answers are counterarguments
Premise 1, … , Premise nTherefore (presumably), conclusion
![Page 64: Argumentation Henry Prakken SIKS Basic Course Learning and Reasoning May 26 th, 2009](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d535503460f94a2f57d/html5/thumbnails/64.jpg)
Expert testimony(Walton 1996)
Critical questions: Is E biased? Is P consistent with what other experts say? Is P consistent with known evidence?
E is expert on DE says that PP is within D Therefore (presumably), P is the case
![Page 65: Argumentation Henry Prakken SIKS Basic Course Learning and Reasoning May 26 th, 2009](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d535503460f94a2f57d/html5/thumbnails/65.jpg)
Witness testimony
Critical questions: Is W sincere? (veracity) Was P evidenced by W’s senses? (objectivity) Did P occur? (observational sensitivity)
Witness W says PTherefore (presumably), P
![Page 66: Argumentation Henry Prakken SIKS Basic Course Learning and Reasoning May 26 th, 2009](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d535503460f94a2f57d/html5/thumbnails/66.jpg)
Perception
Critical questions: Are the circumstances such that reliable
observation of P is impossible? …
P is observedTherefore (presumably), P
![Page 67: Argumentation Henry Prakken SIKS Basic Course Learning and Reasoning May 26 th, 2009](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d535503460f94a2f57d/html5/thumbnails/67.jpg)
Memory
Critical questions: Was P originally based on beliefs of
which one is false? …
P is recalledTherefore (presumably), P
![Page 68: Argumentation Henry Prakken SIKS Basic Course Learning and Reasoning May 26 th, 2009](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d535503460f94a2f57d/html5/thumbnails/68.jpg)
‘Unpacking’ the witness testimony scheme
Critical questions: Is W sincere? (veracity) Was P evidenced by W’s senses?
(objectivity) Did P occur? (observational sensitivity)
Witness W says “I remember I saw P”Therefore (presumably), W remembers he saw PTherefore (presumably), W saw PTherefore (presumably), P
Witness testimony
Witness testimony
![Page 69: Argumentation Henry Prakken SIKS Basic Course Learning and Reasoning May 26 th, 2009](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d535503460f94a2f57d/html5/thumbnails/69.jpg)
‘Unpacking’ the witness testimony scheme
Critical questions: Is W sincere? (veracity) Was P evidenced by W’s senses?
(objectivity) Did P occur? (observational sensitivity)
Witness W says “I remember I saw P”Therefore (presumably), W remembers he saw PTherefore (presumably), W saw PTherefore (presumably), P
Memory
Memory
![Page 70: Argumentation Henry Prakken SIKS Basic Course Learning and Reasoning May 26 th, 2009](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d535503460f94a2f57d/html5/thumbnails/70.jpg)
‘Unpacking’ the witness testimony scheme
Critical questions: Is W sincere? (veracity) Was P evidenced by W’s senses?
(objectivity) Did P occur? (observational sensitivity)
Witness W says “I remember I saw P”Therefore (presumably), W remembers he saw PTherefore (presumably), W saw PTherefore (presumably), P
Perception
Perception
![Page 71: Argumentation Henry Prakken SIKS Basic Course Learning and Reasoning May 26 th, 2009](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d535503460f94a2f57d/html5/thumbnails/71.jpg)
Applying commonsense generalisations
Critical questions: are there exceptions to the generalisation?
exceptional classes of people may have other reasons to flea Illegal immigrants Customers of prostitutes …
PIf P then usually QTherefore (presumably), Q
People who flea from a crime scene usually have consciousness of guilt
Consc of Guilt
Fleas If Fleas then usually Consc of Guilt
![Page 72: Argumentation Henry Prakken SIKS Basic Course Learning and Reasoning May 26 th, 2009](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d535503460f94a2f57d/html5/thumbnails/72.jpg)
Arguments from consequences
Critical questions: Does A also have bad (good) consequences? Are there other ways to bring about G? ...
Action A brings about G, G is good (bad)Therefore (presumably), A should (not) be done
![Page 73: Argumentation Henry Prakken SIKS Basic Course Learning and Reasoning May 26 th, 2009](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d535503460f94a2f57d/html5/thumbnails/73.jpg)
Other work on argument-based inference
Reasoning about priorities and defeat Abstract support relations between
arguments Gradual defeat Other semantics Dialectical proof theories Combining modes of reasoning ...
![Page 74: Argumentation Henry Prakken SIKS Basic Course Learning and Reasoning May 26 th, 2009](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d535503460f94a2f57d/html5/thumbnails/74.jpg)
Part 2:Dialogue
![Page 75: Argumentation Henry Prakken SIKS Basic Course Learning and Reasoning May 26 th, 2009](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d535503460f94a2f57d/html5/thumbnails/75.jpg)
‘Argument’ is ambiguous Inferential structure
Single agents (Nonmonotonic) logic Fixed information state
Form of dialogue Multiple agents Dialogue theory Changing information state
![Page 76: Argumentation Henry Prakken SIKS Basic Course Learning and Reasoning May 26 th, 2009](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d535503460f94a2f57d/html5/thumbnails/76.jpg)
Example P: Tell me all you know about recent
trading in explosive materials (request)
P: why don’t you want to tell me?P: why aren’t you allowed to tell me?
P: You may be right in general (concede) but in this case there is an exception since this is a matter of national importance
P: since we have heard about a possible terrorist attack
P: OK, I agree (offer accepted).
O: No I won’t (reject)
O: since I am not allowed to tell youO: since sharing such information could
endanger an investigation
O: Why is this a matter of national importance?
O: I concede that there is an exception, so I retract that I am not allowed to tell you. I will tell you on the condition that you don’t exchange the information with other police officers (offer)
![Page 77: Argumentation Henry Prakken SIKS Basic Course Learning and Reasoning May 26 th, 2009](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d535503460f94a2f57d/html5/thumbnails/77.jpg)
Example P: Tell me all you know about recent
trading in explosive materials (request)
P: why don’t you want to tell me?P: why aren’t you allowed to tell me?
P: You may be right in general (concede) but in this case there is an exception since this is a matter of national importance
P: since we have heard about a possible terrorist attack
P: OK, I agree (offer accepted).
O: No I won’t (reject)
O: since I am not allowed to tell youO: since sharing such information could
endanger an investigation
O: Why is this a matter of national importance?
O: I concede that there is an exception, so I retract that I am not allowed to tell you. I will tell you on the condition that you don’t exchange the information with other police officers (offer)
![Page 78: Argumentation Henry Prakken SIKS Basic Course Learning and Reasoning May 26 th, 2009](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d535503460f94a2f57d/html5/thumbnails/78.jpg)
Example P: Tell me all you know about recent
trading in explosive materials (request)
P: why don’t you want to tell me?P: why aren’t you allowed to tell me?
P: You may be right in general (concede) but in this case there is an exception since this is a matter of national importance
P: since we have heard about a possible terrorist attack
P: OK, I agree (offer accepted).
O: No I won’t (reject)
O: since I am not allowed to tell youO: since sharing such information could
endanger an investigation
O: Why is this a matter of national importance?
O: I concede that there is an exception, so I retract that I am not allowed to tell you. I will tell you on the condition that you don’t exchange the information with other police officers (offer)
![Page 79: Argumentation Henry Prakken SIKS Basic Course Learning and Reasoning May 26 th, 2009](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d535503460f94a2f57d/html5/thumbnails/79.jpg)
Types of dialogues (Walton & Krabbe)
Dialogue Type Dialogue Goal Initial situation
Persuasion resolution of conflict conflict of opinion
Negotiation making a deal conflict of interest
Deliberation reaching a decision need for action
Information seeking
exchange of information
personal ignorance
Inquiry growth of knowledge general ignorance
![Page 80: Argumentation Henry Prakken SIKS Basic Course Learning and Reasoning May 26 th, 2009](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d535503460f94a2f57d/html5/thumbnails/80.jpg)
Dialogue systems (according to Carlson 1983)
Dialogue systems define the conditions under which an utterance is appropriate
An utterance is appropriate if it promotes the goal of the dialogue in which it is made
Appropriateness defined not at speech act level but at dialogue level
Dialogue game approach Protocol should promote the goal of the dialogue
![Page 81: Argumentation Henry Prakken SIKS Basic Course Learning and Reasoning May 26 th, 2009](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d535503460f94a2f57d/html5/thumbnails/81.jpg)
Formal dialogue systems
Topic language With a logic (possibly nonmonotonic)
Communication language Locution + content (from topic language) With a protocol: rules for when utterances may
be made Should promote the goal of the dialogue
Effect rules (e.g. on agent’s commitments) Termination and outcome rules
![Page 82: Argumentation Henry Prakken SIKS Basic Course Learning and Reasoning May 26 th, 2009](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d535503460f94a2f57d/html5/thumbnails/82.jpg)
Negotiation
Dialogue goal: making a deal Participants’ goals: maximise
individual gain Typical communication language:
Request p, Offer p, Accept p, Reject p, …
![Page 83: Argumentation Henry Prakken SIKS Basic Course Learning and Reasoning May 26 th, 2009](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d535503460f94a2f57d/html5/thumbnails/83.jpg)
Persuasion Participants: proponent (P) and opponent (O)
of a dialogue topic T Dialogue goal: resolve the conflict of opinion
on T Participants’ goals:
P wants O to accept T O wants P to give up T
Typical speech acts: Claim p, Concede p, Why p, p since S, Retract p,
Deny p …Goal of argument games:Verify logical status of argument or proposition relative to given theory
![Page 84: Argumentation Henry Prakken SIKS Basic Course Learning and Reasoning May 26 th, 2009](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d535503460f94a2f57d/html5/thumbnails/84.jpg)
Standards for dialogue systems Argument games: soundness and
completeness wrt some logical semantics
Dialogue systems: Effectiveness wrt dialogue goal
Efficiency, relevance, termination, ... Fairness wrt participants’ goals
Can everything relevant be said?, ...
![Page 85: Argumentation Henry Prakken SIKS Basic Course Learning and Reasoning May 26 th, 2009](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d535503460f94a2f57d/html5/thumbnails/85.jpg)
Some standards for persuasion systems
Correspondence With participants’ beliefs
If union of beliefs implies p, can/will agreement on p result?
If parties agree that p, does the union of their beliefs imply p?
... With ‘dialogue theory’
If union of commitments implies p, can/will agreement on p result?
...
![Page 86: Argumentation Henry Prakken SIKS Basic Course Learning and Reasoning May 26 th, 2009](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d535503460f94a2f57d/html5/thumbnails/86.jpg)
A communication language (Dijkstra et al.
2007)Speech act Attack Surrender
request() offer (’), reject() -
offer() offer(’) ( ≠ ’), reject() accept()
reject() offer(’) ( ≠ ’), why-reject ()
-
accept() - -
why-reject() claim (’) -
claim() why() concede()
why() since S (an argument) retract()
since S why() ( S)’ since S’ (a defeater)
concede() concede ’ (’ S)
concede() - -
retract() - -
deny() - -
![Page 87: Argumentation Henry Prakken SIKS Basic Course Learning and Reasoning May 26 th, 2009](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d535503460f94a2f57d/html5/thumbnails/87.jpg)
A protocol (Dijkstra et al. 2007)
Start with a request Repy to a previous move of the other agent Pick your replies from the table Finish persuasion before resuming negotiation Turntaking:
In nego: after each move In pers: various rules possible
Termination: In nego: if offer is accepted or someone withdraws In pers: if main claim is retracted or conceded
![Page 88: Argumentation Henry Prakken SIKS Basic Course Learning and Reasoning May 26 th, 2009](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d535503460f94a2f57d/html5/thumbnails/88.jpg)
Example dialogue formalised
P: Request to tell
O: Reject to tell
P: Why reject to tell?
Embedded persuasion
...
O: Offer to tell if no further exchange
P: Accept after tell no further exchange
![Page 89: Argumentation Henry Prakken SIKS Basic Course Learning and Reasoning May 26 th, 2009](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d535503460f94a2f57d/html5/thumbnails/89.jpg)
Persuasion part formalisedO: Claim Not allowed to tell
P: Why not allowed to tell?
O: Not allowed to tell since telling endangers investigation &What endangers an investigation is not allowed
P: Concede What endangers an investigation is not allowed
O: Why National importance?
P: National importance since Terrorist threat &Terrorist threat National importance
P: Exception to R1 since National importance & National importance Exception to R1
![Page 90: Argumentation Henry Prakken SIKS Basic Course Learning and Reasoning May 26 th, 2009](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d535503460f94a2f57d/html5/thumbnails/90.jpg)
Persuasion part formalisedO: Claim Not allowed to tell
P: Why not allowed to tell?
O: Not allowed to tell since telling endangers investigation &What endangers an investigation is not allowed
P: Concede What endangers an investigation is not allowed
O: Why National importance?
P: National importance since Terrorist threat &Terrorist threat National importance
P: Exception to R1 since National importance & National importance Exception to R1
P: Concede Exception to R1
![Page 91: Argumentation Henry Prakken SIKS Basic Course Learning and Reasoning May 26 th, 2009](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d535503460f94a2f57d/html5/thumbnails/91.jpg)
Persuasion part formalisedO: Claim Not allowed to tell
P: Why not allowed to tell?
O: Not allowed to tell since telling endangers investigation &What endangers an investigation is not allowed
P: Concede What endangers an investigation is not allowed
O: Why National importance?
P: National importance since Terrorist threat &Terrorist threat National importance
P: Exception to R1 since National importance & National importance Exception to R1
O: Concede Exception to R1
O: Retract Not allowed to tell
![Page 92: Argumentation Henry Prakken SIKS Basic Course Learning and Reasoning May 26 th, 2009](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d535503460f94a2f57d/html5/thumbnails/92.jpg)
Theory building in dialogue In my 2005 approach to
(persuasion) dialogue: Agents build a joint theory during the
dialogue A dialectical graph
Moves are operations on the joint theory
![Page 93: Argumentation Henry Prakken SIKS Basic Course Learning and Reasoning May 26 th, 2009](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d535503460f94a2f57d/html5/thumbnails/93.jpg)
Not allowed to tellclaim
![Page 94: Argumentation Henry Prakken SIKS Basic Course Learning and Reasoning May 26 th, 2009](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d535503460f94a2f57d/html5/thumbnails/94.jpg)
Not allowed to tellclaim why
![Page 95: Argumentation Henry Prakken SIKS Basic Course Learning and Reasoning May 26 th, 2009](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d535503460f94a2f57d/html5/thumbnails/95.jpg)
Not allowed to tell
Telling endangersinvestigation
R1: What endangers aninvestigation is not allowed
claim why
since
![Page 96: Argumentation Henry Prakken SIKS Basic Course Learning and Reasoning May 26 th, 2009](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d535503460f94a2f57d/html5/thumbnails/96.jpg)
Not allowed to tell
Telling endangersinvestigation
R1: What endangers aninvestigation is not allowed
claim why
sinceconcede
![Page 97: Argumentation Henry Prakken SIKS Basic Course Learning and Reasoning May 26 th, 2009](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d535503460f94a2f57d/html5/thumbnails/97.jpg)
Not allowed to tell
Telling endangersinvestigation
R1: What endangers aninvestigation is not allowed
Exception to R1
claim why
since
since
National importance R2: national importance
Not R1
concede
![Page 98: Argumentation Henry Prakken SIKS Basic Course Learning and Reasoning May 26 th, 2009](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d535503460f94a2f57d/html5/thumbnails/98.jpg)
Not allowed to tell
Telling endangersinvestigation
R1: What endangers aninvestigation is not allowed
Exception to R1
claim why
since
since
National importance R2: national importance
Not R1
why
concede
![Page 99: Argumentation Henry Prakken SIKS Basic Course Learning and Reasoning May 26 th, 2009](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d535503460f94a2f57d/html5/thumbnails/99.jpg)
Not allowed to tell
Telling endangersinvestigation
R1: What endangers aninvestigation is not allowed
Exception to R1
claim why
since
since
National importance R2: national importance
Not R1
Terrorist threat national importance
Terrorist threat
why
since
concede
![Page 100: Argumentation Henry Prakken SIKS Basic Course Learning and Reasoning May 26 th, 2009](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d535503460f94a2f57d/html5/thumbnails/100.jpg)
Not allowed to tell
Telling endangersinvestigation
R1: What endangers aninvestigation is not allowed
Exception to R1
claim why
since
since
National importance R2: national importance
Not R1
Terrorist threat national importance
Terrorist threat
why
since
concede
concede
![Page 101: Argumentation Henry Prakken SIKS Basic Course Learning and Reasoning May 26 th, 2009](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d535503460f94a2f57d/html5/thumbnails/101.jpg)
Not allowed to tell
Telling endangersinvestigation
R1: What endangers aninvestigation is not allowed
Exception to R1
claim why
since
since
National importance R2: national importance
Not R1
Terrorist threat national importance
Terrorist threat
why
since
concede
concederetract
![Page 102: Argumentation Henry Prakken SIKS Basic Course Learning and Reasoning May 26 th, 2009](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d535503460f94a2f57d/html5/thumbnails/102.jpg)
Research issues Investigation of protocol properties
Mathematical proof or experimentation Combinations of dialogue types
Deliberation! Multi-party dialogues Dialogical agent behaviour (strategies) ...
![Page 103: Argumentation Henry Prakken SIKS Basic Course Learning and Reasoning May 26 th, 2009](https://reader030.vdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032801/56649d535503460f94a2f57d/html5/thumbnails/103.jpg)
Further information http://people.cs.uu.nl/henry/siks/
siks09.html