Towards a Dialogue Game-Based Semantics for Extended Abstract Argumentation Frameworks Based on Indecision-Blocking

Yamil Osvaldo Soto, Cristhian Ariel David Deagustini, Maria Vanina Martinez, Gerardo Ignacio Simari

Abstract: Dialogue game-based semantics for abstract argumentation are relevant for several reasons. From a theoretical point of view, they provide a different perspective regarding extension-based or labeling-based approaches to study the theoretical properties of the argument evaluation process. From a more practical perspective, they allow us to examine whether or not an argument belongs to a given extension (or labeling) without computing an entire (set of) extension(s) or labeling(s), and guide the development of efficient algorithms. This last point is significant in the context of the development of argumentation-based knowledge representation and reasoning tools for real-world applications. In this paper, we expand the dialogue game-based semantics available for extended abstract argumentation frameworks, a generalization of abstract argumentation frameworks where two kinds of defeat are considered, proper and blocking, and the sub-argument relation is taken into account. The novel dialogue game-based semantics we propose is inspired in a specific interpretation of cycles that considers them as an indecision, a situation in which we do not have enough information to decide the status of the arguments involved.