Computing consensus: A logic for reasoning about deliberative processes based on argumentation

TL;DR

This paper introduces a modal logic framework for analyzing multi-agent deliberative processes based on argumentation frameworks, focusing on properties like faithfulness and outcome reasoning.

Contribution

It develops a formal modal logic approach to model and reason about multi-agent argumentation and deliberation processes, including model checking techniques.

Findings

Formalizes deliberative processes as stepwise aggregation of argumentation frameworks

Provides modal logic tools for reasoning about possible deliberative outcomes

Includes technical results on model checking for these structures

Abstract

We consider multi-agent argumentation, where each agent's view of the arguments is encoded as an argumentation framework (AF). Then we study deliberative processes than can occur on this basis. We think of a deliberative process as taking the shape of a stepwise aggregation of a single joint AF, and we are interested in reasoning about the space of possible outcomes. The only restriction we place on deliberative processes is that they should satisfy faithfulness, a postulate amounting to requiring that whenever deliberation leads to a new relationship being introduced between two arguments, this relationship is endorsed by at least one participating agent. We use modal logic to reason about the resulting deliberative structures, and we provide some technical results on model checking. We also give an example and suggest some directions for future work.