Some Supplementaries to The Counting Semantics for Abstract Argumentation

Dung's abstract argumentation framework consists of a set of interacting arguments and a series of semantics for evaluating them. Those semantics partition the powerset of the set of arguments into two classes: extensions and non-extensions. In order to reason with a specific semantics, one needs to take a credulous or skeptical approach, i.e. an argument is eventually accepted, if it is accepted in one or all extensions, respectively. In our previous work \cite{ref-pu2015counting}, we have proposed a novel semantics, called \emph{counting semantics}, which allows for a more fine-grained assessment to arguments by counting the number of their respective attackers and defenders based on argument graph and argument game. In this paper, we continue our previous work by presenting some supplementaries about how to choose the damaging factor for the counting semantics, and what relationships with some existing approaches, such as Dung's classical semantics, generic gradual valuations. Lastly, an axiomatic perspective on the ranking semantics induced by our counting semantics are presented.Comment: 8 pages, 3 figures, ICTAI 201

Rational Verification in Iterated Electric Boolean Games

Electric boolean games are compact representations of games where the players have qualitative objectives described by LTL formulae and have limited resources. We study the complexity of several decision problems related to the analysis of rationality in electric boolean games with LTL objectives. In particular, we report that the problem of deciding whether a profile is a Nash equilibrium in an iterated electric boolean game is no harder than in iterated boolean games without resource bounds. We show that it is a PSPACE-complete problem. As a corollary, we obtain that both rational elimination and rational construction of Nash equilibria by a supervising authority are PSPACE-complete problems.Comment: In Proceedings SR 2016, arXiv:1607.0269

Combining Norms, Roles, Dependence and Argumentation in Agreement Technologies

A major challenge for Agreement Technologies is the combination of existing technologies and rea- soning methods. In this paper we focus on the three core layers of the Agreement Technologies tower, called Norms, Organization and Argumentation. We present a framework for arguing about agreements based on norms, roles and dependence, together with a case study from the sharing economy

MaxSAT Evaluation 2017 : Solver and Benchmark Descriptions

Peer reviewe

Coalitions of Arguments: An Approach with Constraint Programming

The aggregation of generic items into coalitions leads to the creation of sets of homogenous entities. In this paper we accomplish this for an input set of arguments, and the result is a partition according to distinct lines of thought, i.e., groups of "coherent" ideas. We extend Dung\u27s Argumentation Framework (AF) in order to deal with coalitions of arguments. The initial set of arguments is partitioned into not-intersected subsets. All the found coalitions show the same property inherited by Dung, e.g., all the coalitions in the partition are admissible (or conflict-free, complete, stable): they are generated according to Dung\u27s principles. Each of these coalitions can be assigned to a different agent. We use Soft Constraint Programming as a formal approach to model and solve such partitions in weighted AFs: semiring algebraic structures can be used to model different optimization criteria for the obtained coalitions. Moreover, we implement and solve the presented problem with JaCoP, a Java constraint solver, and we test the code over a small-world network

New Perspectives on Games and Interaction

This volume is a collection of papers presented at the 2007 colloquium on new perspectives on games and interaction at the Royal Dutch Academy of Sciences in Amsterdam. The purpose of the colloquium was to clarify the uses of the concepts of game theory, and to identify promising new directions. This important collection testifies to the growing importance of game theory as a tool to capture the concepts of strategy, interaction, argumentation, communication, cooperation and competition. Also, it provides evidence for the richness of game theory and for its impressive and growing application

Dialogue games for explaining medication choices

SMT solvers can be used efficiently to search for optimal paths across multiple graphs when optimising for certain resources. In the medical context, these graphs can represent treatment plans for chronic conditions where the optimal paths across all plans under consideration are the ones which minimize adverse drug interactions. The SMT solvers, however, work as a black-box model and there is a need to justify the optimal plans in a human-friendly way. We aim to fulfill this need by proposing explanatory dialogue protocols based on computational argumentation to increase the understanding and trust of humans interacting with the system. The protocols provide supporting reasons for nodes in a path and also allow counter reasons for the nodes not in the graph, highlighting any potential adverse interactions during the dialogue.Postprin