Abstract
In this paper we propose a labelling based dialogue game for determining whether a single argument within a Dung argumentation framework is skeptically preferred. Our game consists of two phases, and determines the membership of a single argument within the extension, assuming optimal play by dialogue participants. In the first phase, one player attempts to advance arguments to construct an extension not containing the argument under consideration, while the second phase verifies that the extension is indeed a preferred one. Correctness within this basic game requires perfect play by both players, and we therefore also introduce an overarching game to overcome this limitation.
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.
i.e., only those arguments for which there is a directed path according to the defeat relation to the focal argument in the graph generated by the argumentation framework.
References
Caminada, M.: Dialogues and HY-arguments. In: Delgrande, J., Schaub, T. (eds.) 10th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning, pp. 94–99 (2004)
Caminada, M.: On the issue of reinstatement in argumentation. In: Fisher, M., Hoek, W., Konev, B., Lisitsa, A. (eds.) JELIA 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4160, pp. 111–123. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). doi:10.1007/11853886_11
Caminada, M.W.A., Dvořák, W., Vesic, S.: Preferred semantics as socratic discussion. J. Log. Comput. 26(4), 1257–1292 (2016). doi:10.1093/logcom/exu005
Caminada, M., Kutlak, R., Oren, N., Vasconcelos, W.W.: Scrutable plan enactment via argumentation and natural language generation. In: Bazzan, A.L.C., Huhns, M.N., Lomuscio, A., Scerri, P. (eds.) International conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, pp. 1625–1626 (2014)
Caminada, M., Podlaszewski, M.: Grounded semantics as persuasion dialogue. In: Verheij, B., Szeider, S., Woltran, S. (eds.) Computational Models of Argument, vol. 245, pp. 478–485 (2012)
Caminada, M., Podlaszewski, M.: User-computer persuasion dialogue for grounded semantics. In: Benelux Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 343–344 (2012)
Cayrol, C., Doutre, S., Mengin, J.: Dialectical proof theories for the credulous preferred semantics of argumentation frameworks. In: Benferhat, S., Besnard, P. (eds.) Symbolic, Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty, vol. 2143, pp. 668–679 (2001)
Doutre, S., Mengin, J.: On sceptical vs credulous acceptance for abstract argument systems. In: Delgrande, J., Schaub, T. (eds.) 10th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning, pp. 134–139 (2004)
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)
Dung, P.M., Thang, P.M.: A sound and complete dialectical proof procedure for sceptical preferred argumentation. In: LPNMR-Workshop on Argumentation and Nonmonotonic Reasoning, pp. 49–63 (2007)
Jakobovits, H., Vermeir, D.: Dialectic semantics for argumentation frameworks. In: Seventh International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pp. 53–62 (1999)
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, US (2009)
Prakken, H.: Combining sceptical epistemic reasoning with credulous practical reasoning. In: Dunne, P.E., Bench-Capon, T.J.M. (eds.) Computational Models of Argument, vol. 144, pp. 311–322 (2006)
Shams, Z., Oren, N.: A labelling based dialogue game for skeptical preferred semantics, Technical report ABDN-CS-2016-02. http://homepages.abdn.ac.uk/n.oren/pages/abdn-CS2016-02.pdf
Verheij, B.: Two approaches to dialectical argumentation: admissible sets and argumentation stages. In: International Conference on Formal and Applied Practical Reasoning, pp. 357–368 (1996)
Vreeswik, G.A.W., Prakken, H.: Credulous and sceptical argument games for preferred semantics. In: Ojeda-Aciego, M., Guzmán, I.P., Brewka, G., Pereira, L. (eds.) JELIA 2000. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1919, pp. 239–253. Springer, Heidelberg (2000). doi:10.1007/3-540-40006-0_17
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Shams, Z., Oren, N. (2016). A Two-Phase Dialogue Game for Skeptical Preferred Semantics. In: Michael, L., Kakas, A. (eds) Logics in Artificial Intelligence. JELIA 2016. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 10021. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-48758-8_41
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-48758-8_41
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-48757-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-48758-8
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)