English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

This paper aims at giving a classification of argumentation games agents play within a multi-agent setting. We investigate different scenarios of such argumentation games that differ in the protocol used for argumentation, i.e. direct, synchronous, and dialectical argumentation protocols, the awareness that agents have on other agents beliefs, and different settings for the preferences of agents. To this end we employ structured argumentation frameworks, which are an extension to Dung's abstract argumentation frameworks that give a simple inner structure to arguments. We also provide some game theoretical results that characterize a specific argumentation game as strategy-proof and develop some argumentation selection strategies that turn out to be the dominant strategies for other specific argumentation games.

Classification and strategical issues of argumentation games on structured argumentation frameworks