Abstract
Argumentation games have been proved to be a robust and flexible tool to resolve conflicts among agents. An agent can propose its explanation and its goal known as a claim, which can be refuted by other agents. The situation is more complicated when there are more than two agents playing the game.
We propose a weighting mechanism for competing premises to tackle with conflicts from multiple agents in an n-person game. An agent can defend its proposal by giving a counter-argument to change the “opinion” of the majority of opposing agents. During the game, an agent can exploit the knowledge that other agents expose in order to promote and defend its main claim.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: A dialectical model of assessing conflicting arguments in legal reasoning. Artificial Intellifgence and Law 4, 331–368 (1996)
Jennings, N.R., Parsons, S., Noriega, P., Sierra, C.: On argumentation-based negotiation. In: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Multi-Agent Systems, pp. 1–7 (1998)
Parsons, S., McBurney, P.: Argumentation-based dialogues for agent coordination. Group Decision and Negotiation (12), 415–439 (2003)
Dung, P.M.: 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)
Antoniou, G., Billington, D., Governatori, G., Maher, M.J.: A flexible framework for defeasible logics. In: Proc. American National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 401–405 (2000)
Maher, M.J., Rock, A., Antoniou, G., Billignton, D., Miller, T.: Efficient defeasible reasoning systems. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence Tools 10(4), 483–501 (2001)
Billington, D.: Defeasible logic is stable. Journal of Logic and Computation 3, 370–400 (1993)
Antoniou, G., Billington, D., Governatori, G., Maher, M.J.: Representation results for defeasible logic. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic 2(2), 255–287 (2001)
Antoniou, G., Billington, D., Governatori, G., Maher, M.J.: Embedding defeasible logic into logic programming. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 6(6), 703–735 (2006)
Maher, M.J.: Propositional defeasible logic has linear complexity. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 1(6), 691–711 (2001)
Governatori, G., Maher, M.J., Antoniou, G., Billington, D.: Argumentation Semantics for Defeasible Logic. J. Logic Computation 14(5), 675–702 (2004)
Bench-Capon, T.J.: Specification and implementation of Toulmin dialogue game. In: Hage, J.C., Bench-Capon, T.J.M., Koers, A.W., de Vey Mestdagh, C.N.J., Grutters, C.A.F.M. (eds.) Jurix 1998, pp. 5–20 (1998)
Lodder, A.R.: Thomas F. Gordon, The Pleadings Game – an artificial intelligence model of procedural justice. Artif. Intell. Law 8(2/3), 255–264 (2000)
Amgoud, L., Dimopoulos, Y., Moraitis, P.: A unified and general framework for argumentation-based negotiation. In: Proceedings of the 6th international joint conference on AAMAS, pp. 1–8 (2007)
Rueda, S.V., Garcia, A.J., Simari, G.R.: Argument-based negotiation among bdi agents. Journal of Computer Science and Technology 2(7), 1–8 (2002)
Letia, I.A., Vartic, R.: Defeasible protocols in persuasion dialogues. In: WI-IATW 2006: Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE/WIC/ACM international conference on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology, pp. 359–362 (2006)
Hamfelt, A., Eriksson, J., Nilsson, J.F.: A metalogic formalization of legal argumentation as game trees with defeasible reasoning. In: ICAIL 2005: Proceedings of the 10th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, pp. 250–251. ACM, New York (2005)
Thakur, S., Governatori, G., Padmanabhan, V., Eriksson Lundström, J.: Dialogue games in defeasible logic. In: Orgun, M.A., Thornton, J. (eds.) AI 2007. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4830, pp. 497–506. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2008 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Pham, D.H., Thakur, S., Governatori, G. (2008). Settling on the Group’s Goals: An n-Person Argumentation Game Approach. In: Bui, T.D., Ho, T.V., Ha, Q.T. (eds) Intelligent Agents and Multi-Agent Systems. PRIMA 2008. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 5357. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-89674-6_37
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-89674-6_37
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-89673-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-89674-6
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)