Abstract
In current approaches to computational argumentation, values are presented as the means to adjudicate conflict between arguments: arguments stand in “attack” relations; values are posited to hold of an argument as a whole rather than of any constituent parts; and preference rankings between values help to determine a “winning” argument. We propose a novel, formal, alternative approach where values are constitutive in the construction of arguments and yield the source of conflict between arguments - Value-based Formal Reasoning (VFR). It accounts for motivated reasoning, wherein an Agent selects propositions relative to the Agent’s values, uses those selected propositions in their knowledge base, then constructs (instantiated) arguments from the knowledge base. Thus, the arguments themselves reflect an Agent’s values. It sets the root of conflict between arguments in differences between the values associated with the arguments’ constituent propositions rather than just with the arguments as a whole. This contrasts with current work in two respects. First, conflict between arguments is not necessarily only based on some incompatibility between their constituent propositions or more generically between abstract arguments. Second, values contribute to explaining why the Agent constructed the argument rather than just to adjudicate conflicts amongst arguments.
Tomasz Zurek received funding from the Dutch Research Council (NWO) Platform for Responsible Innovation (NWO-MVI) as part of the DILEMA Project and from TRUST RPA project at the University of Amsterdam.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
This is a simplification. In future work, we will examine the relations of values with complex propositions.
- 3.
We use props as an abbreviation of propositions.
References
Aliseda, A.: The logic of abduction: an introduction. In: Magnani, L., Bertolotti, T. (eds.) Springer Handbook of Model-Based Science. SH, pp. 219–230. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-30526-4_10
Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Value-based argumentation. FLAP 8(6), 1543–1588 (2021). https://collegepublications.co.uk/ifcolog/?00048
Bench-Capon, T., Prakken, H., Wyner, A., Atkinson, K.: Argument schemes for reasoning with legal cases using values. In: Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, ICAIL 2013, pp. 13–22. Association for Computing Machinery, New York (2013). https://doi.org/10.1145/2514601.2514604
Bench-Capon, T., Sartor, G.: A model of legal reasoning with cases incorporating theories and values. Artif. Intell. 150(1), 97–143 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0004-3702(03)00108-5. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0004370203001085. AI and Law
Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. J. Log. Comput. 13(3), 429–448 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1093/logcom/13.3.429
Besnard, P., Hunter, A.: Elements of Argumentation. MIT Press, Cambridge (2008)
Besnard, P., Hunter, A.: Argumentation based on classical logic. In: Simari, G.R., Rahwan, I. (eds.) Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 133–152. Springer, Cham (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-98197-0_7
Cahill-O’Callaghan, R., Richards, B.: Policy, principle, or values: an exploration of judicial decision-making. Louisiana Law Rev. 79(2), 397–418 (2019)
Denecker, M., Kakas, A.: Abduction in logic programming. In: Kakas, A.C., Sadri, F. (eds.) Computational Logic: Logic Programming and Beyond. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2407, pp. 402–436. Springer, Heidelberg (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45628-7_16
Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif. Intell. 77(2), 321–358 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1016/0004-3702(94)00041-X
Dung, P.M.: An axiomatic analysis of structured argumentation with priorities. Artif. Intell. 231, 107–150 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2015.10.005. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000437021500168X
Dung, P.M., Kowalski, R.A., Toni, F.: Assumption-based argumentation. In: Simari, G.R., Rahwan, I. (eds.) Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 199–218. Springer, Cham (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-98197-0_10
García, A.J., Simari, G.R.: Defeasible logic programming: an argumentative approach. Theory Pract. Log. Program. 4(1–2), 95–138 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1017/S1471068403001674
Governatori, G., Maher, M.J., Antoniu, G., Billington, D.: Argumentation semantics for defeasible logic. J. Log. Comput. 14(5), 675–702 (2004)
Kahneman, P., Slovic, P., Tversky, A.: Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Cambridge University Press (1982). https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511809477
Kiesel, J., Alshomary, M., Handke, N., Cai, X., Wachsmuth, H., Stein, B.: Identifying the human values behind arguments. In: Muresan, S., Nakov, P., Villavicencio, A. (eds.) Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), ACL 2022, Dublin, Ireland, 22–27 May 2022, pp. 4459–4471. Association for Computational Linguistics (2022). https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2022.acl-long.306
Modgil, S., Prakken, H.: The ASPIC+ framework for structured argumentation: a tutorial. Argument Comput. 5(1), 31–62 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1080/19462166.2013.869766
Parks-Leduc, L., Feldman, G., Bardi, A.: Personality traits and personal values: a meta-analysis. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 19(1), 3–29 (2015)
Perelman, C., Olbrechts-Tyteca, L., Wilkinson, J., Weaver, P.: The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. University of Notre Dame Press (1969). http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvpj74xx
Pigozzi, G., Tsoukiàs, A., Viappiani, P.: Preferences in artificial intelligence. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 77(3–4), 361–401 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10472-015-9475-5
Prakken, H.: An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. Argument Comput. 1(2), 93–124 (2010)
Schwartz, S.: An overview of the Schwartz theory of basic values. Online Readings Psychol. Cult. 2(1) (2012)
Walton, D., Krabbe, E.: Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. University of New York Press (1995)
Winikoff, M., Sidorenko, G., Dignum, V., Dignum, F.: Why bad coffee? Explaining BDI agent behaviour with valuings. Artif. Intell. 300, 103554 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2021.103554
Wyner, A.Z., Schneider, J.: Arguing from a point of view. In: Ossowski, S., Toni, F., Vouros, G.A. (eds.) Proceedings of the First International Conference on Agreement Technologies, AT 2012, Dubrovnik, Croatia, 15–16 October 2012. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 918, pp. 153–167. CEUR-WS.org (2012). http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-918/111110153.pdf
Zurek, T.: Goals, values, and reasoning. Expert Syst. Appl. 71, 442–456 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2016.11.008. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0957417416306303
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Wyner, A., Zurek, T. (2024). Towards a Formalisation of Motivated Reasoning and the Roots of Conflict. In: Osman, N., Steels, L. (eds) Value Engineering in Artificial Intelligence. VALE 2023. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 14520. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-58202-8_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-58202-8_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-58204-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-58202-8
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)