Credulous and Skeptical Argument Games for Complete Semantics in Conflict Resolution based Argumentation
This work addresses a procedural gap in argumentation-based non-monotonic reasoning for defeasible logic programs, though it is incremental as it builds on existing declarative approaches.
The paper tackles the lack of procedural semantics for conflict resolution in argumentation by developing skeptical and credulous argument games for complete semantics, providing soundness and completeness theorems, and adapting these games for multi-context systems.
Argumentation is one of the most popular approaches of defining a~non-monotonic formalism and several argumentation based semantics were proposed for defeasible logic programs. Recently, a new approach based on notions of conflict resolutions was proposed, however with declarative semantics only. This paper gives a more procedural counterpart by developing skeptical and credulous argument games for complete semantics and soundness and completeness theorems for both games are provided. After that, distribution of defeasible logic program into several contexts is investigated and both argument games are adapted for multi-context system.