Classification and strategical issues of argumentation games on structured argumentation frameworks
نویسندگان
چکیده
This paper aims at giving a classification of argumentation games agents play within a multi-agent setting. We investigate different scenarios of such argumentation games that differ in the protocol used for argumentation, i. e. direct, synchronous, and dialectical argumentation protocols, the awareness that agents have on other agents beliefs, and different settings for the preferences of agents. To this end we employ structured argumentation frameworks, which are an extension to Dung’s abstract argumentation frameworks that give a simple inner structure to arguments. We also provide some game theoretical results that characterize a specific argumentation game as strategy-proof and develop some argumentation selection strategies that turn out to be the dominant strategies for other specific argumentation games.
منابع مشابه
On Strategic Argument Selection in Structured Argumentation Systems
This paper deals with strategical issues of arguing agents in a multi-agent setting. We investigate different scenarios of such argumentation games that differ in the protocol used for argumentation, i. e. direct, synchronous, and dialectical argumentation protocols, the awareness that agents have on other agents beliefs, and different settings for the preferences of agents. We give a thorough ...
متن کاملReasoning about Preferences in Structured Extended Argumentation Frameworks
This paper combines two recent extensions of Dung’s abstract argumentation frameworks in order to define an abstract formalism for reasoning about preferences in structured argumentation frameworks. First, extended argumentation frameworks extend Dung frameworks with attacks on attacks, thus providing an abstract dialectical semantics that accommodates argumentation-based reasoning about prefer...
متن کاملExtensive-Form Argumentation Games
Two prevalent approaches to automated negotiation are the application of game-theoretic notions and the argumentation-based angle; these two schemes are frequently at odds. An elegant view of argumentation is Dung’s abstract argumentation theory [2], which cold-shoulders the internal structure of arguments in favor of the entire debate’s global structure. Dung’s theory is elaborated by work in ...
متن کاملIntegrating Object and Meta-Level Value Based Argumentation
A recent extension to Dung’s argumentation framework allows for arguments to express preferences between other arguments. Value based argumentation can be formalised in this extended framework, enabling meta-level argumentation about the values that arguments promote, and the orderings on these values. In this paper, we show how extended frameworks integrating meta-level reasoning about values ...
متن کاملAbduction in Argumentation Frameworks and Its Use in Debate Games
This paper studies an abduction problem in formal argumentation frameworks. Given an argument, an agent verifies whether the argument is justified or not in its argumentation framework. If the argument is not justified, the agent seeks conditions to explain the argument in its argumentation framework. We formulate such abductive reasoning in argumentation semantics and provide its computation i...
متن کامل