Skip Navigation


Logic Journal of IGPL Advance Access originally published online on January 1, 2009
Logic Journal of IGPL 2009 17(1):77-90; doi:10.1093/jigpal/jzn029
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Caminada, M.
Right arrow Articles by Wu, Y.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2009. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

An argument game for stable semantics

Martin Caminada

University of Luxembourg, E-mail: martin.caminada{at}uni.lu

Yining Wu

University of Luxembourg, E-mail: yining.wu{at}uni.lu

In this paper, we present a discussion game for argumentation under stable semantics. Our work is inspired by Vreeswijk and Prakken, who have defined a similar game for preferred semantics. In the current paper, we restate Vreeswijk and Prakken's work using the approach of argument labellings and then show how it can be adjusted for stable semantics. The nature of the resulting argument game is somewhat unusual, since stable semantics does not satisfy the property of relevance.

Key Words: argumentation • argument labellings • discussion games • stable semantics

Received for publication 19 September 2008.

References

    [1]  Baroni P, Giacomin M. On principle-based evaluation of extension-based argumentation semantics. Artificial Intelligence (2007) 171(10-15):675–700.[CrossRef][Web of Science]

    [2]  Baroni P, Giacomin M, Guida G. Scc-recursiveness: a general schema for argumentation semantics. Artificial Intelligence (2005) 168(1-2):165–210.

    [3]  Bodenstaff L, Prakken H, Vreeswijk G. On formalising dialogue systems for argumentation in the event calculus. (2006) Windermere (UK). 374–382. InProceedings of the Eleventh International Workshop on Nonmonotonic Reasoning.

    [4]  Caminada MWA. For the sake of the Argument. Explorations into argument-based reasoning. (2004) Doctoral dissertation Free University Amsterdam.

    [5]  Caminada MWA. On the issue of reinstatement in argumentation. In. Fischer M, van der Hoek W, Konev B, Lisitsa A, eds. (2006) Springer. 111–123. Logics in Artificial Intelligence; 10th European Conference, JELIA 2006, LNAI 4160.

    [6]  Caminada MWA. Semi-stable semantics. In. In: Computational Models of Argument; Proceedings of COMMA 2006.—Dunne PE, Bench-Capon TJM, eds. (2006) IOS Press. 121–130.

    [7]  Caminada MWA. An algorithm for computing semi-stable semantics. (2007) Berlin: Springer Verlag. 222–234. InProceedings of the 9th European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitalive Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty (ECSQARU 2007) number 4724 in Springer Lecture Notes in AI.

    [8]  Cayrol C, Doutre S, Mengin J. On Decision Problems related to the preferred semantics for argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation (2003) 13(3):377–403.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

    [9]  Dimopoulos Y, Torres A. Graph theoretical structures in logic programs and default theories. Theoretical Computer Science (1996) 170:209–244.[Web of Science]

    [10]  Dung PM. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence (1995) 77:321–357.[CrossRef][Web of Science]

    [11]  Dung PM, Mancarella P, Toni F. Computing ideal sceptical argumentation. Artificial Intelligence (2007) 171(10–15):642–674.[CrossRef][Web of Science]

    [12]  Gelfond M, Lifschitz V. The stable model semantics for logic programming. In. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference/Symposium on Logic Programming. (1988) MIT Press. 1070–1080.

    [13]  Gelfond M, Lifschitz V. Classical negation in logic programs and disjunctive databases. New Generation Computing (1991) 9(3/4):365–385.

    [14]  Pollock JL. Cognitive Carpentry. A Blueprint for How to Build a Person. (1995) Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    [15]  Prakken H, Sartor G. Argument-based extended logic programming with defeasible priorities. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics (1997) 7:25–75.

    [16]  Reiter R. A logic for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence (1980) 13:81–132.[CrossRef][Web of Science]

    [17]  Verheij B. Two approaches to dialectical argumentation: admissible sets and argumentation stages. In. In: Proceedings of the Eighth Dutch Conference on Artificial Intelligence (NAIC'96).—Meyer J-JCh, van der Gaag LC, eds. (1996) Utrecht: Utrecht University. 357–368.

    [18]  von Neumann J, Morgenstern O. Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. (1944) Princeton University Press.

    [19]  Vreeswijk GAW, Prakken H. Credulous and sceptical argument games for preferred semantics. In. (2000) Berlin: Springer Verlag. 239–253. Proceedings of the 7th European Workshop on Logic for Artificial Intelligence (JELIA-00) number 1919 in Springer Lecture Notes in AI.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?



This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Caminada, M.
Right arrow Articles by Wu, Y.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?