[en] 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.
Disciplines :
Computer science
Author, co-author :
DAUPHIN, Jérémie ; University of Luxembourg > Faculty of Science, Technology and Communication (FSTC) > Computer Science and Communications Research Unit (CSC)
Satoh, Ken
External co-authors :
yes
Language :
English
Title :
Dialogue Games for Enforcement of Argument Acceptance and Rejection via Attack Removal
Publication date :
2018
Event name :
The 21st International Conference on Principles and Practice of Multi-Agent Systems
Event organizer :
Springer
Event date :
October 31 – November 2, 2018
Main work title :
International Conference on Principles and Practice of Multi-Agent Systems
Baroni, P., Giacomin, M., Guida, G.: SCC-recursiveness: a general schema for argumentation semantics. Artif. Intell. 168, 162–210 (2005)
Baumann, R.: What does it take to enforce an argument? Minimal change in abstract argumentation. ECAI 12, 127–132 (2012)
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
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)
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)
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)
Dunne, P.E., Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Two party immediate response disputes: properties and efficiency. Artif. Intell. 149(2), 221–250 (2003)
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
Liao, B., Jin, L., Koons, R.C.: Dynamics of argumentation systems: a division-based method. Artif. Intell. 175(11), 1790–1814 (2011)
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
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
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
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)
