Abstract
Agent interactions where the agents hold conflicting goals could be modelled as adversarial argumentation games. In many real-life situations (e.g., criminal litigation, consumer legislation), due to ethical, moral or other principles governing interaction, the burden of proof, i.e., which party is to lose if the evidence is balanced [22], is a priori fixed to one of the parties. Analogously, when resolving disputes in a heterogeneous agent-system the unequal importance of different agents for carrying out the overall system goal need to be accounted for. In this paper we present an asymmetric protocol for an adversarial argumentation game in Defeasible Logic, suggesting Defeasible Logic as a general representation formalism for argumentation games modelling agent interactions.
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
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 in Logic Programming. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 6(6), 703–735 (2006)
Antoniou, G., Billington, D., Governatori, G., Maher, M.J., Rock, A.: A family of defeasible reasoning logics and its implementation. In: Proc. ECAI 2000, pp. 459–463 (2000)
Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Specification and Implementation of Toulmin Dialogue Game. In: Proc. JURIX 1998, Nijmegen, GNI, pp. 5–20 (1984)
Billington, D.: Defeasible logic is stable. J. Log. and Comput. 3, 370–400 (1993)
Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming, and n–person games. Artif. Intel. 77, 321–357 (1995)
Dung, P.M., Kowalski, R.A., Toni, F.: Dialectic proof procedures for assumption-based, admissible argumentation. Artif. Intel. 170, 114–159 (2006)
Gordon, T.: The Pleadings Game: An artificial Intelligence Model of Procedural Justice. Artif. Intel. and Law 2(4) (1993)
Governatori, G., Maher, M.J., Billington, D., Antoniou, G.: Argumentation semantics for defeasible logics. J. Log. and Comput. 14(5), 675–702 (2004)
Governatori, G., Rotolo, A.: Defeasible logic: Agency, intention and obligation. In: Lomuscio, A., Nute, D. (eds.) DEON 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3065, pp. 114–128. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)
Governatori, G., Rotolo, A., Padmanabhan, V.: The cost of social agents. In: Proc. AAMAS 2006, pp. 513–520. ACM Press, New York (2006)
Grosof, B.N.: Representing e-commerce rules via situated courteous logic programs in RuleML. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 3(1), 2–20 (2004)
Eriksson Lundström, J., Hamfelt, A., Fischer Nilsson, J.: A Rule-Sceptic Characterization of Acceptable Legal Arguments. In: Proc. ICAIL 2007, pp. 283–284. ACM Press, New York (2007)
Hamfelt, A., Eriksson Lundström, J., Fischer Nilsson, J.: A metalogic formalization of legal argumentation as game trees with defeasible reasoning. In: Proc. ICAIL 2005, pp. 250–251. ACM Press, New York (2005)
Letia, I.A., Varic, R.: Defeasible protocols in persuasion dialogues. In: Proc. WE-IAT 2006. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2006)
Lodder, A.R.: DiaLaw: On Legal Justification and Dialogical Models of Argumentation. Artif. Intel. and Law 8(2-3), 265–276 (2000)
Maher, M.J., Rock, A., Antoniou, G., Billington, D., Miller, T.: Efficient defeasible reasoning systems. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence Tools 10(4), 483–501 (2001)
Nute, D.: Defeasible logic. In: Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming, vol. 3, pp. 353–395. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1994)
Prakken, H.: Modelling defeasibility in law:logic or procedure? Fundamenta informaticae, 253–271 (2001)
Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: Rules about rules: Assessing conflicting arguments in legal reasoning. Artif. Intel. and Law, 331–368 (1996)
Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: Presumptions and burdens of proof. In: Proc. Jurix 2006, pp. 21–30. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2006)
Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: Formalising arguments about the burden of persuation. In: Proc. ICAIL 2007, pp. 97–106. ACM Press, New York (2007)
Prakken, H.: Relating protocols for dynamic dispute with logics for defeasible argumentation. Synthese 127, 187–219 (2001)
Roth, B., Riveret, R., Rotolo, A., Governatori, G.: Strategic Argumentation: A Game Theoretical Investigation. In: Proc. ICAIL 2007, pp. 81–90. ACM Press, New York (2007)
Thakur, S., Governatori, G., Padmanabhan Nair, 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)
Vreeswijk, G.: Abstract Argumentation Systems. Artif. Intel. 90, 225–279 (1997)
Vreeswijk, G.: Representation of formal dispute with a standing order. Artif. Intel. and Law 8(2/3), 205–231 (2000)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Eriksson Lundström, J., Governatori, G., Thakur, S., Padmanabhan, V. (2009). An Asymmetric Protocol for Argumentation Games in Defeasible Logic. In: Ghose, A., Governatori, G., Sadananda, R. (eds) Agent Computing and Multi-Agent Systems. PRIMA 2007. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 5044. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-01639-4_19
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-01639-4_19
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-01638-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-01639-4
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)