Preferred semantics as Socratic discussion

Martin W. A. Caminada; Wolfgang Dvořák; Srdjan Vesic

doi:10.1093/logcom/exu005

Preferred semantics as Socratic discussion

Martin W. A. Caminada, Wolfgang Dvořák, Srdjan Vesic

Computing Science

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

22 Citations (Scopus)

24 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

In abstract argumentation theory, preferred semantics has become one of the most popular approaches for determining the sets of arguments that can collectively be accepted. However, the description of preferred semantics, as it was originally stated by Dung, has a mainly technical and mathematical nature, making it difficult for lay persons to understand what the concept of preferred semantics is essentially about. In the current paper, we aim to bridge the gap between mathematics and philosophy by providing a reformulation of (credulous) preferred semantics in terms of Socratic discussion. In order to do so, we first provide a (semi-)formal treatment of some of the concepts in Socratic dialogue.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	1257-1292
Number of pages	36
Journal	Journal of Logic and Computation
Volume	26
Issue number	4
Early online date	12 Feb 2014
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1093/logcom/exu005
Publication status	Published - Aug 2016

Bibliographical note

Funding
For M.C., the major part of the work on this article was carried out while he was affiliated with the Interdisciplinary Centre for Security, Reliability and Trust at the University of Luxembourg. His research was supported by the National Research Fund, Luxembourg (LAAMI project), as well as by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC, UK), grant ref. EP/J012084/1 (SAsSY project). For S.V., the major part of the work on this article was carried out while he was affiliated with the Computer Science and Communication Research Unit at the University of Luxembourg. He worked on this article during the tenure of an ERCIM Alain Bensoussan Fellowship Programme, which is supported by the Marie Curie Co-funding of Regional, National and International Programmes (COFUND) of the European Commission. During this time, he was also funded by the National Research Fund, Luxembourg. When finishing the work on this article, he was a CRNS researcher affiliated with CRIL

Keywords

abstract argumentation
preferred semantics
Socratic dialogue
computational complexity

Access to Document

10.1093/logcom/exu005Licence: Unspecified

preferred-game-JLC
This is a pre-copyedited, author-produced PDF of an article accepted for publication in Journal of Logic and Computation following peer review. The definitive publisher-authenticated version Caminada, MWA, Dvořák, W & Vesic, S 2014, 'Preferred Semantics as Socratic Discussion' Journal of Logic and Computation is available online at http://logcom.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2014/02/06/logcom
Accepted author manuscript, 369 KBLicence: Unspecified

Cite this

@article{b506ce7c48bf4bddbdfffd497cbf5613,

title = "Preferred semantics as Socratic discussion",

abstract = "In abstract argumentation theory, preferred semantics has become one of the most popular approaches for determining the sets of arguments that can collectively be accepted. However, the description of preferred semantics, as it was originally stated by Dung, has a mainly technical and mathematical nature, making it difficult for lay persons to understand what the concept of preferred semantics is essentially about. In the current paper, we aim to bridge the gap between mathematics and philosophy by providing a reformulation of (credulous) preferred semantics in terms of Socratic discussion. In order to do so, we first provide a (semi-)formal treatment of some of the concepts in Socratic dialogue.",

keywords = "abstract argumentation, preferred semantics, Socratic dialogue, computational complexity",

author = "Caminada, {Martin W. A.} and Wolfgang Dvo{\v r}{\'a}k and Srdjan Vesic",

note = "Funding For M.C., the major part of the work on this article was carried out while he was affiliated with the Interdisciplinary Centre for Security, Reliability and Trust at the University of Luxembourg. His research was supported by the National Research Fund, Luxembourg (LAAMI project), as well as by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC, UK), grant ref. EP/J012084/1 (SAsSY project). For S.V., the major part of the work on this article was carried out while he was affiliated with the Computer Science and Communication Research Unit at the University of Luxembourg. He worked on this article during the tenure of an ERCIM Alain Bensoussan Fellowship Programme, which is supported by the Marie Curie Co-funding of Regional, National and International Programmes (COFUND) of the European Commission. During this time, he was also funded by the National Research Fund, Luxembourg. When finishing the work on this article, he was a CRNS researcher affiliated with CRIL",

year = "2016",

month = aug,

doi = "10.1093/logcom/exu005",

language = "English",

volume = "26",

pages = "1257--1292",

journal = "Journal of Logic and Computation",

issn = "0955-792X",

publisher = "Oxford University Press",

number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Preferred semantics as Socratic discussion

AU - Caminada, Martin W. A.

AU - Dvořák, Wolfgang

AU - Vesic, Srdjan

N1 - Funding For M.C., the major part of the work on this article was carried out while he was affiliated with the Interdisciplinary Centre for Security, Reliability and Trust at the University of Luxembourg. His research was supported by the National Research Fund, Luxembourg (LAAMI project), as well as by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC, UK), grant ref. EP/J012084/1 (SAsSY project). For S.V., the major part of the work on this article was carried out while he was affiliated with the Computer Science and Communication Research Unit at the University of Luxembourg. He worked on this article during the tenure of an ERCIM Alain Bensoussan Fellowship Programme, which is supported by the Marie Curie Co-funding of Regional, National and International Programmes (COFUND) of the European Commission. During this time, he was also funded by the National Research Fund, Luxembourg. When finishing the work on this article, he was a CRNS researcher affiliated with CRIL

PY - 2016/8

Y1 - 2016/8

N2 - In abstract argumentation theory, preferred semantics has become one of the most popular approaches for determining the sets of arguments that can collectively be accepted. However, the description of preferred semantics, as it was originally stated by Dung, has a mainly technical and mathematical nature, making it difficult for lay persons to understand what the concept of preferred semantics is essentially about. In the current paper, we aim to bridge the gap between mathematics and philosophy by providing a reformulation of (credulous) preferred semantics in terms of Socratic discussion. In order to do so, we first provide a (semi-)formal treatment of some of the concepts in Socratic dialogue.

AB - In abstract argumentation theory, preferred semantics has become one of the most popular approaches for determining the sets of arguments that can collectively be accepted. However, the description of preferred semantics, as it was originally stated by Dung, has a mainly technical and mathematical nature, making it difficult for lay persons to understand what the concept of preferred semantics is essentially about. In the current paper, we aim to bridge the gap between mathematics and philosophy by providing a reformulation of (credulous) preferred semantics in terms of Socratic discussion. In order to do so, we first provide a (semi-)formal treatment of some of the concepts in Socratic dialogue.

KW - abstract argumentation

KW - preferred semantics

KW - Socratic dialogue

KW - computational complexity

U2 - 10.1093/logcom/exu005

DO - 10.1093/logcom/exu005

M3 - Article

SN - 0955-792X

VL - 26

SP - 1257

EP - 1292

JO - Journal of Logic and Computation

JF - Journal of Logic and Computation

IS - 4

ER -

Preferred semantics as Socratic discussion

Abstract

Bibliographical note

Keywords

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this