Representing Pure Nash Equilibria in Argumentation
This work provides a method for explaining Nash equilibria to non-experts, but it is incremental as it builds on existing argumentation frameworks.
The paper tackles the problem of representing normal form games and computing pure strategy Nash equilibria using argumentation, demonstrating correctness and theoretical properties of the approach.
In this paper we describe an argumentation-based representation of normal form games, and demonstrate how argumentation can be used to compute pure strategy Nash equilibria. Our approach builds on Modgil's Extended Argumentation Frameworks. We demonstrate its correctness, prove several theoretical properties it satisfies, and outline how it can be used to explain why certain strategies are Nash equilibria to a non-expert human user.