Games and Argumentation: Time for a Family Reunion!
Bertram Lud\"ascher, Yilin Xia

TL;DR
This paper explores the deep connections between argumentation frameworks, logic programming, and game theory, highlighting their shared semantics and proposing new perspectives for research and explanation techniques.
Contribution
It uncovers the relationships between argumentation, logic programming, and game semantics, and introduces notions from games to provide new insights and research directions.
Findings
Connections between argumentation and logic programming clarified
Game-based notions offer new perspectives for argumentation analysis
Techniques from query evaluation games can explain argumentation results
Abstract
The rule "defeated(X) attacks(Y,X), defeated(Y)" states that an argument is defeated if it is attacked by an argument that is not defeated. The rule "win(X) move(X,Y), win(Y)" states that in a game a position is won if there is a move to a position that is not won. Both logic rules can be seen as close relatives (even identical twins) and both rules have been at the center of attention at various times in different communities: The first rule lies at the core of argumentation frameworks and has spawned a large family of models and semantics of abstract argumentation. The second rule has played a key role in the quest to find the "right" semantics for logic programs with recursion through negation, and has given rise to the stable and well-founded semantics. Both semantics have been widely studied by the logic programming and nonmonotonic reasoning…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsLogic, Reasoning, and Knowledge · Semantic Web and Ontologies · Logic, programming, and type systems
