Argumentation Semantics for

Contextual Defeasible Logic

Antonis Bikakis
University College London
Based on the joint work with
Grigoris Antoniou
The London Argumentation Forum 2012,
Kings College London

Overview
Background
Contextual Defeasible Logic

Representation Model
Argumentation Semantics
Properties

More about CDL

Operational Semantics, Applications, Future Work

The London Argumentation Forum, April 2012

Background
Context in AI

A partial and approximate theory of the world from some

individuals perspective (McCarthy, 1987)
A logical theory a set of axioms and inference rules

Multi-Context Systems (Giunchiglia &Trento group)

Distributed context theories connected through

mappings that enable information flow between
different contexts
Mappings modeled as inference rules with premises and
consequences in different contexts

The London Argumentation Forum, April 2012

Background
Nonmonotonic MCS

MCS enriched with nonmonotonic features to handle

imperfections, e.g. incomplete knowledge,
inconsistencies

Context A
k

Context B

Context C

The London Argumentation Forum, April 2012

Background
Nonmonotonic MCS (Vienna Group)

Bridge rules modeled as default rules

Diagnoses / Explanations to resolve inconsistency
Centralized inconsistency resolution (global monitoring)

Contextual Defeasible Logic

Bridge rules modeled as defeasible rules

Preference information on contexts to resolve
inconsistency
Distributed inconsistency resolution (local view)

The London Argumentation Forum, April 2012

Overview
Background
Contextual Defeasible Logic

Representation Model
Argumentation Semantics
Properties

Future Steps

The London Argumentation Forum, April 2012

Representation Model
AADefeasible
DefeasibleMCS
MCSCCisisaacollection
collectionof
ofdistributed
distributeddefeasible
defeasible
theories
theoriesCCi i
Each
Eachcontext
contextCCi iisisaatuple
tuple(V
(Vi i, ,RRi i, ,TTi i))
V : vocabulary used by C
Vi : vocabulary used by Ci
i

RRi ::set
setof
ofrules
rules
i
T : preference ordering on C
Ti : preference ordering on C

VVi ::aaset
setof
ofpositive
positiveliterals
literalsand
andtheir
theirnegations
negations
i

The London Argumentation Forum, April 2012

7

Representation Model
Three
Threetypes
typesof
ofrules
rulesin
in RRi i
Strict local rules
Strict local rules

rril l::aai11, ,aai22,,

aain-1
n-1

aainn
,,

i
i
i
i
i
Defeasible
Defeasiblelocal
localrules
rules
n
rridd::aai11, ,aai22,,
aain-1
n-1 ai n
,,

a
i
i
i
i
i
Mapping
Mappingrules
rules
n
rrimm::aai11, ,aaj22,,
aakn-1
n-1 al n
,,

a
i
i
j
k
l

TTi isisaapartial
partialpreference
preferenceordering
orderingon
on CC
i
modeled
modeledas
asaaDirected
DirectedAcyclic
AcyclicGraph
Graph

The London Argumentation Forum, April 2012

8

Argumentation Semantics
Extends the argumentation semantics of
Defeasible Logic

Main Features

Distribution of available knowledge

Preference information

Arguments with local range

Arguments made by different contexts associated through
mapping rules
Partial preference preorder on the set of arguments

Variants

Blocking / Propagating Ambiguity

With / Without Team Defeat

The London Argumentation Forum, April 2012

Support Relation (SRC)

Set
Setof
oftriples
triplesof
ofthe
theform
form (C
(Ci i, ,PT
PTpipi, ,ppi)i)
C : context in C,
Ci : context in C,
i

ppi ::literal
literalin
inVVi ,i,,,
i
PT
PTpi ::proof
prooftree
treefor
forppi
pi

Nodes of PTpi labeled by literals:

Root labeled by pi
For every node with label q
If q in Vi and a1, a2,, an label the children of q then
there is a rule ri in Ci with body a1, a2,, an and head q
If q does not belong to Vi then this is a leaf node, and
there is a triple of the form (Cj , PTq , q) in SRC
Arcs of PTpi labeled by the rules used to obtain them

The London Argumentation Forum, April 2012

10

Argument
An
Anargument
argumentAAfor
forppi iisisaatriple
triple(C
(Ci i, ,PT
PTpipi, ,ppi)i)in
inSR
SRCC
pi is the conclusion of A
Any literal labeling a node in A is a conclusion of A
A is a (proper) subargument of A if its proof tree is a
(proper) subtree of the proof tree of A
A is a local argument of Ci if it contains only literals
from Vi otherwise it is a mapping argument of Ci
Strict local arguments contain only strict local
rules
Defeasible local arguments contain at least one
defeasible local rule
ArgsCi is the set of all arguments in Ci
ArgsC is the set of all arguments in C

The London Argumentation Forum, April 2012

11

Example 1
Consider the following context theory C1
r11l : a1 x1

r15d : b1

r12m : a2 a1

r16l : d1 b1

r13m : a3 , a4 a1

r17l : d1

r14d : b1 x1

Arguments
A1 in ArgsC1 B1
x1
r11

a1
r12

A3

A4

x1

b1

a1
r13

a3

r13

r14

a4

r16

b1
r15

d1
r17

a2
The London Argumentation Forum, April 2012
12

Preference
An
Anargument
argument AAisispreferred
preferredto
toargument
argumentBB in
incontext
contextCCi iiff
iff
one
oneof
ofthe
thefollowing
followingconditions
conditionshold
hold
A is a strict local argument of C and B is not
A is a strict local argument of Ci and B is not
i

AAisisaalocal
localargument
argumentof
of CCi iand
andBBisisnot
not
Both
Botharguments
argumentsare
aremapping
mappingarguments
argumentsof
of CCi i and
and
for
forall
allnodes
nodeslabeled
labeledby
byaaforeign
foreignliteral
literal aakkin
inAA (a
(akkin
inVVkkVVi)i)
there
thereisisaanode
nodelabeled
labeledby
byaaforeign
foreignliteral
literal bbl lin
inBB(b
(bl lin
inVVl l
VVi))
i

such
suchthat
thataakkisispreferred
preferredto
tobbl lin
inCCi i
--aak isispreferred
preferredto
tobbl lin
inCCi iiff
iffthere
thereis
isaapath
pathfrom
from CCl l to
toCCkkin
inTTi i
k
Partial Order on Contexts => Partial Preorder on
Arguments
The London Argumentation Forum, April 2012
13

Attack
An
Anargument
argumentAAattacks
attacksan
anargument
argumentBBat
atppifif
p is a conclusion of B,
p is a conclusion of B,
p is a conclusion of A, and
p is a conclusion of A, and
B is not preferred to A
B is not preferred to A

The London Argumentation Forum, April 2012

14

Example 1 (contd)
A1

B1

A3

A4

x1

a1

x1

b1

r11

a1
r12

r13

a3

r13

r14

a4

r16

b1
r15

d1
r14

a2

The London Argumentation Forum, April 2012

Assuming T1 = {[C2 , C4]}

A1 attacks B1 at a1
B1 does not attack A1 at a1
A4 attacks A3 at b1
A3 does not attack A4 (strict local argument)
15

Argumentation Line
An
Anargumentation
argumentation line
line AALLfor
foraaliteral
literalppisisaasequence
sequenceof
of
arguments
argumentsconstructed
constructedin
insteps
stepsas
asfollows
follows

In
Inthe
thefirst
firststep
stepadd
addin
in AAL one
oneargument
argumentfor
forpp
L

In
Ineach
eachnext
nextstep,
step,for
foreach
eachdistinct
distinctliteral
literal qqj jlabeling
labelingaa
leaf
leafnode
nodeof
ofthe
theproof
prooftrees
treesof
ofthe
thearguments
argumentsadded
addedin
inthe
the
previous
previousstep,
step,add
addone
oneargument
argumentwith
withconclusion
conclusionqqj j

Head of argumentation line AL is the argument added

in step 1
p is called the conclusion of AL
AL is a finite argumentation line if the number of steps

required to build it is finite

The London Argumentation Forum, April 2012

16

Support - Undercut

An
Anargument
argumentAAisissupported
supportedby
byaaset
setof
ofarguments
arguments SSifif

Every proper subargument of A is in S and

Every proper subargument of A is in S and

There
Thereisisaafinite
finiteargumentation
argumentationline
lineAALLwith
withhead
headAAsuch
such
that
argument
thatevery
every
argumentin
inAALL{A}
{A}is
isin
inSS

An
Anargument
argumentAAisisundercut
undercutby
byaaset
setof
ofarguments
arguments SSififfor
for
every
everyargumentation
argumentationline
line AALLwith
withhead
headAAthere
thereisisan
an
argument
argumentBBs.t.
s.t.
B is supported by S and
B is supported by S and
B attacks a proper subargument of A or an argument in
B attacks a proper subargument of A or an argument in
AAL {A}
L {A}

The London Argumentation Forum, April 2012

17

Example 2
B1

A2

B2

x1

a1

a2

a2

a5

a6

A 1 a

a2
CC3
3

B3
a3

a3

CC
2
2

a4

T1 = [C3 , C2 , C4]
CC
4
4

T2 = [C6 , C5]
B4
a4

CC5
5

A5
a5

CC
6
6

B6

A6

a6

a6

Argumentation lines: AL1={A1, A2, A5}, BL1={B1, B3, B4} , BL2={B2, B6}
Assuming that S={A5, A6}, A2 supported by S, B2 undercut by S
Assuming that S={A5, A6 , B3 , B4 , A2}, B1, A1 supported by S,
A1not undercut by S

The London Argumentation Forum, April 2012

CC
1
1

A1

18

Acceptability - Justifiability

An
Anargument
argumentAAisisacceptable
acceptablew.r.t.
w.r.t.aaset
setof
ofarguments
arguments SSifif
A is a strict local argument or
A is a strict local argument or
A is supported by S and every argument attacking A is
A is supported by S and every argument attacking A is
undercut
undercutby
bySS

The
Theset
setof
ofjustified
justified arguments
argumentsisisdefined
definedas
as
C
C
JArgs
JArgsC==UJ
UJi Cwhere
where
i

JJ =={}{}
C
JJ =={A
{A| |AAisisacceptable
acceptablew.r.t.
w.r.t.JJi iC}}
C
0 C
0
C
i+1 C
i+1

AAliteral
literalppi iisisjustified
justifiedififititisisaaconclusion
conclusionof
ofan
anargument
argumentin
in
C
JArgs
JArgsC
The London Argumentation Forum, April 2012
19

Refutability
An
Anargument
argumentAAisisrejected
rejectedby
byaaset
setof
ofarguments
arguments SSwhen
when
A is undercut by S or
A is undercut by S or
A is attacked by an argument that is supported by S
A is attacked by an argument that is supported by S
C
rejected
rejected arguments
arguments(RArgs
(RArgsC):):set
setof
ofarguments
argumentsrejected
rejected
C
by
byJArgs
JArgsC

C
AAliteral
literalppisisrejected
rejectedififthere
thereis
isno
noargument
argumentfor
for ppin
inArgs
ArgsC-C
RArgs
RArgsC

The London Argumentation Forum, April 2012

20

Example 2 (contd)
CC
1
1

A1

B1

A2

B2

x1

a1

a2

a2

a5

a6

A 1
a1

a2
CC3
3

B3
a3

a3

CC
2
2

a4

T1 = [C2 , C4]
CC
4
4

T2 = [C6 , C5]
B4

A5

CC5
5

a4

J0C={}

J1C={B3, B4, A5, A6}

J2C={B3, B4, A5, A6 , A2}

J3C={B3, B4, A5, A6 , A2 , A1}

J4C={B3, B4, A5, A6, A2 , A1, A1} = JArgsC

a5

CC
6
6

B6

A6

a6

a6

RArgsC={B6, B2, B1}

The London Argumentation Forum, April 2012

21

Properties of Argumentation System

The sequence JiC is monotonically increasing
No argument is both justified and rejected.
No literal is both justified and rejected
If the set of justified arguments JArgsC contains two
arguments with contradictory conclusions, then both are
strict local arguments
Assuming consistency in the strict local rules of each
context, the entire framework is consistent

The London Argumentation Forum, April 2012

22

More about CDL

Operational Semantics

Applications

Algorithms for distributed query evaluation

Alternative strategies for conflict resolution
Implemented in Logic Programming
Mobile Social Networks
Ambient Intelligence (Internet of Things)

Future Work

Relation with Abstract Argumentation Frameworks

Preference-based Afs, Context Argumentation Systems

Access Control Layer

Large-scale applications

The London Argumentation Forum, April 2012

23

Argumentation Semantics for

Contextual Defeasible Logic

Thank you for your attention!

Questions?

The London Argumentation Forum 2012,

Kings College London