Advertisement

Discussion Games for Preferred Semantics of Abstract Dialectical Frameworks

  • Atefeh Keshavarzi ZafarghandiEmail author
  • Rineke Verbrugge
  • Bart Verheij
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11726)

Abstract

Abstract dialectical frameworks (ADFs) are introduced as a general formalism for modeling and evaluating argumentation. However, the role of discussion in reasoning in ADFs has not been clarified well so far. The current work provides a discussion game as a proof method for preferred semantics of ADFs to cover this gap. We show that an argument is credulously acceptable (deniable) by an ADF under preferred semantics iff there exists a discussion game that can defend the acceptance (denial) of the argument in question.

Keywords

Argumentation Abstract dialectical frameworks Decision theory Game theory Structural discussion 

References

  1. 1.
    Al-Abdulkarim, L., Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Abstract dialectical frameworks for legal reasoning. In: Legal Knowledge and Information Systems JURIX. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 271, pp. 61–70. IOS Press (2014)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Al-Abdulkarim, L., Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: A methodology for designing systems to reason with legal cases using abstract dialectical frameworks. Artif. Intell. Law 24(1), 1–49 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barth, E.M., Krabbe, E.C.: From Axiom to Dialogue: A Philosophical Study of Logics and Argumentation. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brewka, G., Diller, M., Heissenberger, G., Linsbichler, T., Woltran, S.: Solving advanced argumentation problems with answer-set programming. In: Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI, pp. 1077–1083. AAAI Press (2017)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brewka, G., Ellmauthaler, S., Strass, H., Wallner, J.P., Woltran, S.: Abstract dialectical frameworks. An overview. IFCoLog J. Logics Appl. (FLAP) 4(8), 2263–2317 (2017)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brewka, G., Strass, H., Ellmauthaler, S., Wallner, J.P., Woltran, S.: Abstract dialectical frameworks revisited. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Third International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2013), pp. 803–809 (2013)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brewka, G., Woltran, S.: Abstract dialectical frameworks. In: Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference on the Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2010), pp. 102–111 (2010)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cabrio, E., Villata, S.: Abstract dialectical frameworks for text exploration. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence (ICAART 2016), vol. 2, pp. 85–95. SciTePress (2016)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Caminada, M.: Argumentation semantics as formal discussion. In: Handbook of Formal Argumentation, vol. 1, pp. 487–518 (2017)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Caminada, M.W.: A formal account of Socratic-style argumentation. J. Appl. Logic 6(1), 109–132 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Caminada, M.W., Dvořák, W., Vesic, S.: Preferred semantics as Socratic discussion. J. Logic Comput. 26(4), 1257–1292 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cayrol, C., Doutre, S., Mengin, J.: On decision problems related to the preferred semantics for argumentation frameworks. J. Logic Comput. 13(3), 377–403 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.: Bipolarity in argumentation graphs: towards a better understanding. Int. J. Approximate Reasoning 54(7), 876–899 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Diller, M., Zafarghandi, A.K., Linsbichler, T., Woltran, S.: Investigating subclasses of abstract dialectical frameworks. In: Proceedings of Computational Models of Argument, COMMA 2018, Amsterdam, pp. 61–72 (2018)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif. Intell. 77, 321–357 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dung, P.M., Thang, P.M.: A sound and complete dialectical proof procedure for sceptical preferred argumentation. In: Proceedings of the LPNMR-Workshop on Argumentation and Nonmonotonic Reasoning (ArgNMR 2007), pp. 49–63 (2007)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    van Eemeren, F.H., Garssen, B., Krabbe, E.C.W., Snoeck Henkemans, A.F., Verheij, B., Wagemans, J.H.M.: Handbook of Argumentation Theory. Springer, Dordrecht (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9473-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ellmauthaler, S., Strass, H.: The DIAMOND system for computing with abstract dialectical frameworks. In: Proceedings of Computational Models of Argument, COMMA, vol. 266, pp. 233–240. IOS Press (2014)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jakobovits, H., Vermeir, D.: Dialectic semantics for argumentation frameworks. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pp. 53–62. ACM Press (1999)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Krabbe, E.C.: Dialogue logic. In: Gabbay, D., Woods, J. (eds.) Handbook of the History of Logic, pp. 665–704. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2006)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Linsbichler, T., Pührer, J., Strass, H.: A uniform account of realizability in abstract argumentation. In: 22nd European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, ECAI, vol. 285, pp. 252–260. IOS Press (2016)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Macoubrie, J.: Logical argument structures in decision-making. Argumentation 17(3), 291–313 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    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_6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: Argument-based extended logic programming with defeasible priorities. J. Appl. Non-classical Logics 7(1–2), 25–75 (1997)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Strass, H., Wallner, J.P.: Analyzing the computational complexity of abstract dialectical frameworks via approximation fixpoint theory. Artif. Intell. 226, 34–74 (2015)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Thang, P.M., Dung, P.M., Hung, N.D.: Towards a common framework for dialectical proof procedures in abstract argumentation. J. Logic Comput. 19(6), 1071–1109 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Verheij, B.: A labeling approach to the computation of credulous acceptance in argumentation. In: Proceedings of the 20th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI, pp. 623–628. IJCAI (2007)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    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_17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Walton, D., Krabbe, E.: Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. State University of New York Press, New York (1995)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Atefeh Keshavarzi Zafarghandi
    • 1
    Email author
  • Rineke Verbrugge
    • 1
  • Bart Verheij
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Artificial Intelligence, Bernoulli Institute of Mathematics, Computer Science and Artificial IntelligenceUniversity of GroningenGroningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations