Building an epistemic logic for argumentation

Authors:
François Schwarzentruber;Srdjan Vesic;Tjitze Rienstra
Affiliations:
IRISA / ENS Cachan, France;Computer Science and Communication, University of Luxembourg, Luxembourg;Computer Science and Communication, University of Luxembourg, Luxembourg
Venue:
JELIA'12 Proceedings of the 13th European conference on Logics in Artificial Intelligence
Year:
2012

Citing 12
Cited 0

The complexity of reasoning about knowledge and time. I. lower bounds

Journal of Computer and System Sciences - 18th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC), May 28-30, 1986
A mathematical treatment of defeasible reasoning and its implementation

Artificial Intelligence
A guide to completeness and complexity for modal logics of knowledge and belief

Artificial Intelligence
How to reason defeasibly

Artificial Intelligence
On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games

Artificial Intelligence
Abstract argumentation systems

Artificial Intelligence
Multi-Dimensional Modal Logic as a Framework for Spatio-Temporal Reasoning

Applied Intelligence
Reasoning About Knowledge

Reasoning About Knowledge
Heuristics in Argumentation: A Game-Theoretical Investigation

Proceedings of the 2008 conference on Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2008
On the logic of argumentation theory

Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems: volume 1 - Volume 1
Classification and strategical issues of argumentation games on structured argumentation frameworks

Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems: volume 1 - Volume 1
Becoming aware of propositional variables

ICLA'11 Proceedings of the 4th Indian conference on Logic and its applications

Quantified Score

Hi-index	0.00

Visualization

Abstract

In this paper, we study a multi-agent setting in which each agent is aware of a set of arguments. The agents can discuss and persuade each other by putting forward arguments and counter-arguments. In such a setting, what an agent will do, i.e. what argument she will utter, may depend on what she knows about the knowledge of other agents. For example, an agent does not want to put forward an argument that can easily be attacked, unless she believes that she is able to defend her argument against possible attackers. We propose a logical framework for reasoning about the sets of arguments owned by other agents, their knowledge about other agents' arguments, etc. We do this by defining an epistemic logic for representing their knowledge, which allows us to express a wide range of scenarios.