Discussion games for preferred semantics of abstract dialectical frameworks

A. Keshavarzi Zafarghandi, R. Verbrugge, B. Verheij

Research output: Chapter in Book / Report / Conference proceedingConference contributionAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019.Abstract dialectical frameworks (ADFs) are introduced as a general formalism for modeling and evaluating argumentation. However, the role of discussion in reasoning in ADFs has not been clarified well so far. The current work provides a discussion game as a proof method for preferred semantics of ADFs to cover this gap. We show that an argument is credulously acceptable (deniable) by an ADF under preferred semantics iff there exists a discussion game that can defend the acceptance (denial) of the argument in question.
Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationSymbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty - 15th European Conference, ECSQARU 2019, Proceedings
EditorsG. Kern-Isberner, Z. Ognjanović
PublisherSpringer Verlag
Pages62-73
ISBN (Print)9783030297640
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2019
Externally publishedYes
Event15th European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty, ECSQARU 2019 - Belgrade, Serbia
Duration: 18 Sept 201920 Sept 2019

Publication series

NameLecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics)
ISSN (Print)0302-9743
ISSN (Electronic)1611-3349

Conference

Conference15th European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty, ECSQARU 2019
Country/TerritorySerbia
CityBelgrade
Period18/09/1920/09/19

Funding

Supported by the Center of Data Science & Systems Complexity (DSSC) Doctoral Programme, at the University of Groningen.

FundersFunder number
Rijksuniversiteit Groningen

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'Discussion games for preferred semantics of abstract dialectical frameworks'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this