Skip to main content

Dialogue Games for Enforcement of Argument Acceptance and Rejection via Attack Removal

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
PRIMA 2018: Principles and Practice of Multi-Agent Systems (PRIMA 2018)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 11224))

  • 1573 Accesses

Abstract

Argumentation is dynamic in nature and most commonly exists in dialogical form between different agents trying to convince each other. While abstract argumentation framework are mostly static, many studies have focused on dynamical aspects and changes to these static frameworks. An important problem is the one of argument enforcement, modifying an argumentation framework in order to ensure that a certain argument is accepted. In this paper, we use dialogue games to provide an exhaustive list of minimal sets of attacks such that when removed, a given argument is credulously accepted with respect to preferred semantics. We then extend the method to enforce other acceptability statuses and cope with sets of arguments.

J. Dauphin–The work of Jérémie Dauphin was supported by the H2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant number 690974 for the project MIREL.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Baroni, P., Giacomin, M., Guida, G.: SCC-recursiveness: a general schema for argumentation semantics. Artif. Intell. 168, 162–210 (2005)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  2. Baumann, R.: What does it take to enforce an argument? Minimal change in abstract argumentation. ECAI 12, 127–132 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Boella, G., Kaci, S., van der Torre, L.: Dynamics in argumentation with single extensions: abstraction principles and the grounded extension. In: Sossai, C., Chemello, G. (eds.) ECSQARU 2009. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5590, pp. 107–118. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02906-6_11

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. Cayrol, C., Dupin de Saint-Cyr, F., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.-C.: Change in abstract argumentation frameworks: adding an argument. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 38, 49–84 (2010)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. Coste-Marquis, S., Konieczny, S., Mailly, J.-G., Marquis, P.: On the revision of argumentation systems: minimal change of arguments statuses. KR 14, 52–61 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Phan Minh Dung: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif. Intell. 77(2), 321–357 (1995)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  7. Dunne, P.E., Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Two party immediate response disputes: properties and efficiency. Artif. Intell. 149(2), 221–250 (2003)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  8. Gabbriellini, S., Torroni, P.: A new framework for ABMs based on argumentative reasoning. In: Kamiński, B., Koloch, G. (eds.) Advances in Social Simulation. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol. 229, pp. 25–36. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39829-2_3

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  9. Liao, B., Jin, L., Koons, R.C.: Dynamics of argumentation systems: a division-based method. Artif. Intell. 175(11), 1790–1814 (2011)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  10. Modgil, S., Caminada, M.: Proof theories and algorithms for abstract argumentation frameworks. In: Simari, G., Rahwan, I. (eds.) Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 105–129. Springer, Boston (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-98197-0_6

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. Satoh, K., Uno, T.: Enumerating maximal frequent sets using irredundant dualization. In: Grieser, G., Tanaka, Y., Yamamoto, A. (eds.) DS 2003. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2843, pp. 256–268. Springer, Heidelberg (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-39644-4_22

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  12. Vreeswik, G.A.W., Prakken, H.: Credulous and sceptical argument games for preferred semantics. In: Ojeda-Aciego, M., de Guzmán, I.P., Brewka, G., Moniz Pereira, L. (eds.) JELIA 2000. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1919, pp. 239–253. Springer, Heidelberg (2000). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-40006-0_17

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. Zermelo, E.: Über eine Anwendung der Mengenlehre auf die Theorie des Schachspiels. In: Proceedings of the Fifth International Congress of Mathematicians, vol. 2, pp. 501–504. II, Cambridge UP, Cambridge (1913)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jérémie Dauphin .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Dauphin, J., Satoh, K. (2018). Dialogue Games for Enforcement of Argument Acceptance and Rejection via Attack Removal. In: Miller, T., Oren, N., Sakurai, Y., Noda, I., Savarimuthu, B.T.R., Cao Son, T. (eds) PRIMA 2018: Principles and Practice of Multi-Agent Systems. PRIMA 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 11224. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03098-8_29

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03098-8_29

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-03097-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-03098-8

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics