Computer Science ›› 2017, Vol. 44 ›› Issue (4): 256-262.doi: 10.11896/j.issn.1002-137X.2017.04.054

Previous Articles     Next Articles

Argument Game Model for Gradual Argumentation Semantic

WEI Bin   

  • Online:2018-11-13 Published:2018-11-13

Abstract: In formal argumentation theory,the proof theory of argumentation semantics sloves the problem of how to determine the status of justification of an argument in a given argumentation semantic,which always needs a corresponding argument game model.Argument game happens the process of argument interactions between a proponent and an opponent,and they both object and defense their arguments by giving attacking arguments,only if the proponent wins an argument game,its initial argument could obtain explicit status of justification.This paper defined a kind of gradual argumentation semantic,namely BRD-argumentation semantic,which is different from Dung’s abstract argumentation semantic,embeding a circular semantic for calculating the strengthes and degrees of justification of arguments into a structured argumentation framework ASPIC+.For sake of giving the proof theory of this semantic,this paper constructed a corresponding argument game model.

Key words: Structured argumentation framework,Gradual argumentation semantics,Argument game

[1] DUNG P M.On the Acceptability of Arguments and its Fund-mental Role in Nonmonotonic Reasoning,Logic Programming and N-person Games[J].Artificial Intelligence,1995,77(2):321-357.
[2] CAMINADA M,AMGOUD L.On the Evaluation of Argumen- tation Formalisms[J].Artificial Intelligence,2007,171(5/6):286-310.
[3] PRAKKEN H.An Abstract Framework for Argumentation withStructured Arguments[J].Argument and Computation,2010,3(1):93-124.
[4] MODGIL S J,PRAKKEN H.A General Account of Argumenta-tion with Preferences[J].Artificial Intelligence,2013,195(195):361-397.
[5] Most Cited Artificial Intelligence Articles .[2016-11-20].http://www.journals.elsevier.com/artificial-intellgence/most-cited-articles.
[6] BIN W,PRAKKEN H.An Analysis of Critical-link Semantics with Variable Degrees of Justification[J].Argument and Computation,2016,7(1):35-53.
[7] AMGOUND L,CAYROL C,LAGASQUIE C,et al.On Bipolari-ty in Argumentation Frameworks[J].International Journal of Intelligent Systems,2008,23(10):1062-1093.
[8] POLLOCK J L.Defeasible Reasoning with Variable Degrees of Justification[J].Artificial Intelligence,2002,133(1/2):233-282.
[9] GORDON T F,WALTON D.Proof Burdens and Standards[M]∥Rahwan I,Simari G R,eds.Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence.Springer,2009:239-260.
[10] JAKOBOVITS H,VERMEIR M.Robust Semantics for Argumentation Frameworks[J].Journal of Logic and Computation,1999,9(2):215-261.
[11] GAMINADA M,GABBAY D.A Logical Account of Formal Argumentation[J].Studia Logica,2009,93(2/3):109-145.
[12] WU Y N,CAMINADA M.A Labelling-Based Justification Status of Arguments[J].Studies in Logic,2010,3(4):12-29.
[13] 潘伟斌.曹操墓的考古学证明[N].中国社会科学报,2011-11-22(08).
[14] DUNG P M,KOWALSKI R A,TONI F.Dialectic Proof Procedures for Assumption-based,Admissible Argumentation [J].Artificial Intelligence,2006,170(2):114-159.
[15] VREESWIJK G,PRAKKEN H.Credulous and Sceptical Argument Games for Preferred Semantics[C]∥Proceedings of the 7th European Workshop on Logic for Arttficial Intelligence(JELIA-00).Springer,2000:239-253.

No related articles found!
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!