Advertisement

A Two-Phase Dialogue Game for Skeptical Preferred Semantics

  • Zohreh Shams
  • Nir OrenEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10021)

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.

Keywords

Extended Form Labelling Procedure Argumentation Framework Dialogue Game Prefer Extension 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Caminada, M.: Dialogues and HY-arguments. In: Delgrande, J., Schaub, T. (eds.) 10th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning, pp. 94–99 (2004)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    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)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    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)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Caminada, M., Podlaszewski, M.: User-computer persuasion dialogue for grounded semantics. In: Benelux Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 343–344 (2012)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    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)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    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)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    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)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    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)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jakobovits, H., Vermeir, D.: Dialectic semantics for argumentation frameworks. In: Seventh International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pp. 53–62 (1999)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    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)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    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
  15. 15.
    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)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of BathBathUK
  2. 2.Department of Computing ScienceUniversity of AberdeenAberdeenUK

Personalised recommendations