Vol. 43 Nro. 2 (2023)
Articles

Argumentation Frameworks: Relating Principles for Semantics Evaluation with Argument Justification Games

PDF (Español (España))
  • Gustavo Adrián Bodanza
Gustavo Adrián Bodanza
Departamento de Humanidades, Universidad Nacional del Sur, Bahía Blanca, Argentina / Departamento de Humanidades, Universidad Nacional del Sur, Bahia Blanca, Argentina
DOI: https://doi.org/10.36446/af.e500

Published 2023-11-01

Keywords

  • Argumentation Frameworks,
  • Extension Semantics,
  • Dialogue Games
  • Marcos argumentativos,
  • Semánticas de extensiones,
  • Juegos dialógicos
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Abstract

Argumentation frameworks are defeasible argumentation models developed in the field of artificial intelligence to analyze the justification of arguments according to their interaction through attacks. Extension semantics for argumentation frameworks are criteria for sanctioning one (skeptical point of view) or several (credulous point of view) subsets of justified arguments. One way to evaluate different extension semantics is by considering whether or not they satisfy some “principles” (that is, reasonable or desirable properties). In addition to these semantics, approaches to argumentation such as dialogue games have also been proposed, as proof theories to find justified arguments through the winning strategies of a proponent, and correspondences between games and extensions have been demonstrated. As a consequence, argumentative dialogue games can be put into correspondence with the principles of extension semantics. However, those correspondences are not always explicitly available. The aim of this work is to reveal such correspondences with cases of simple games, one skeptical and two variants of credulous.

PDF (Español (España))

References

  1. Atkinson, K., Baroni, P., Giacomin, M., Hunter, A., Prakken, H., Reed, C., Simari, G., Thimm, M., &Villata, S. (2017). Towards artificial argumentation. AI Magazine, 38(3), 25-36. https://doi.org/10.1609/aimag.v38i3.2704
  2. Baroni, P., Caminada, M., & Giacomin, M. (2011). An introduction to argumentation semantics. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 26(04), 365-410. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0269888911000166
  3. Baroni, P., & Giacomin, M. (2007). On principle-based evaluation of extension-based argumentation semantics. Artificial Intelligence, 171(10), 675-700. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2007.04.004
  4. Baumann, R., Brewka, G., & Ulbricht, M. (2020). Comparing weak admissibility semantics to their dung-style counterparts—reduct, modularization, and strong equivalence in abstract argumentation. Proceedings of the International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, 17(1), pp. 79-88. https://doi.org/10.24963/kr.2020/9
  5. Bodanza, G. A., & Tohmé, F. A. (2009). Two approaches to the problems of self-attacking arguments and general odd-length cycles of attack. Journal of Applied Logic, 7(4), 403-420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jal.2007.06.012
  6. Bodanza, G. A., Tohmé, F. A., & Simari, G. R. (2016). Beyond admissibility: Accepting cycles in argumentation with game protocols for cogency criteria. Journal of Logic and Computation, 26(4), 1235-1255. https://doi.org/10.1093/logcom/exu004
  7. Doutre, S., & Mengin, J. (2004). On sceptical vs credulous acceptance for abstract argument systems. En J. Alferes & J. Leite (Eds.) Logics in artificial intelligence, JELIA 2004, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 3229 (pp. 462-473). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-30227-8_39
  8. Dung, P. M. (1995). On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial intelligence, 77(2), 321-357.
  9. Modgil, S., & Caminada, M. (2009). Proof theories and algorithms for abstract argumentation frameworks. En I. Rahwan & G. Simari (Eds.), Argumentation in artificial intelligence (pp. 105-132). Springer.
  10. Rahwan, I., & Simari, G. R. (2009). Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Springer.
  11. Tarski, A. (1955). A lattice-theoretical fixpoint theorem and its applications. Pacific Journal of Mathematics, 5(2), 285-309.
  12. Thang, P. M., Dung, P. M., & Hung, N. D. (2009). Towards a common framework for dialectical proof procedures in abstract argumentation. Journal of Logic and Computation, 19(6), 1071-1109. https://doi.org/10.1093/logcom/exp032
  13. Viglizzo, I., Tohmé, F., & Simari, G. (2009). The foundations of delp: Defeating relations, games and truth values. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 57(2), 181-204.
  14. Vreeswijk, G. A. W., & Prakken, H. (2000). Credulous and sceptical argument games for preferred semantics. En M. Ojeda-Aciego, I. P. De Guzmán, G. Brewka, & L. Moniz Pereira (Eds.), Logics in Artificial Intelligence, JELIA 2000, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1919 (pp. 239-253). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-40006-0_17