Advertisement

Argumentation and Game Theory

  • Iyad Rahwan
  • Kate Larson
Chapter

In a large class of multi-agent systems, agents are self-interested in the sense that each agent is interested only in furthering its individual goals, which may or may not coincide with others’ goals. When such agents engage in argument, they would be expected to argue strategically in such a way that makes it more likely for their argumentative goals to be achieved. What we mean by arguing strategically is that instead of making arbitrary arguments, an agent would carefully choose its argumentative moves in order to further its own objectives.

Keywords

Nash Equilibrium Game Theory Social Choice Function Argumentation Framework Normal Form Game 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    P. M. Dung. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence, 77(2):321–358, 1995.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    J. Glazer and A. Rubinstein. Debates and decisions: On a rationale of argumentation rules. Games and Economic Behavior, 36:158–173, 2001.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    J. Hintikka and G. Sandu. Game-theoretical semantics. In J. van Benthem and A. ter Meulen, editors, Handbook of Logic and Language, pages 361–410. Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    P. Lorenzen. P. Lorenzen. Ein dialogisches konstruktivitätskriterium. In Infinitistic Methods, pages 193–200. Pergamon Press, Oxford, UK, 1961.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    A. Mas-Colell, M. D. Whinston, and J. R. Green. Microeconomic Theory. Oxford University Press, New York NY, USA, 1995.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    P. -A. Matt and F. Toni. A game-theoretic measure of argument strength for abstract argumentation. In S. Hölldobler, C. Lutz, and H. Wansing, editors, Logics in Artificial Intelligence, 11th European Conference, JELIA 2008, volume 5293 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 285–297. 2008.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    S. Modgil. Hierarchical argumentation. In Proceedings of the 10th European Conference on Logics in Artificial Intelligence. Liverpool, UK, 2006.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    H. Prakken. Coherence and flexibility in dialogue games for argumentation. Journal of Logic and Computation, 15(6):1009–1040, 2005.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    H. Prakken and G. Sartor. Argument-based logic programming with defeasible priorities. Journal of Applied Non-classical Logics, 7:25–75, 1997.MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    A. D. Procaccia and J. S. Rosenschein. Extensive-form argumentation games. In Proceedings of the Third European Workshop on Multi-Agent Systems (EUMAS-05), Brussels, Belgium, pages 312–322, 2005.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    I. Rahwan and K. Larson. Pareto optimality in abstract argumentation. In D. Fox and C. Gomes, editors, Proceedings of the 23rd AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-2008), Menlo Park CA, USA, 2008.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    R. Riveret, H. Prakken, A. Rotolo, and G. Sartor. Heuristics in argumentation: A game-theoretical investigation. In P. Besnard, S. Doutre, and A. Hunter, editors, Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA), pages 324–335. IOS Press, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2008.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    J. von Neuman and O. Morgenstern. The Theory of Games and Economic Behaviour. Princeton University Press, Princeton NJ, USA, 1944.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag US 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.British University in Dubai, UAE & University of EdinburghDubaiUK
  2. 2.University of WaterlooWaterlooCanada

Personalised recommendations