[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/ Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Strategic Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems

  • Technical Contribution
  • Published:
KI - Künstliche Intelligenz Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Argumentation-based negotiation describes the process of decision-making in multi-agent systems through the exchange of arguments. If agents only have partial knowledge about the subject of a dialogue strategic argumentation can be used to exploit weaknesses in the argumentation of other agents and thus to persuade other agents of a specific opinion and reach a certain outcome. This paper gives an overview of the field of strategic argumentation and surveys recent works and developments. We provide a general discussion of the problem of strategic argumentation in multi-agent settings and discuss approaches to strategic argumentation, in particular strategies based on opponent models.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
£29.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (United Kingdom)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

Notes

  1. http://www.mthimm.de/projects/tweety/.

References

  1. Arrow KJ (1951) Social choice and individual values. Wiley, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Atkinson K, Bench-Capon TJM, McBurney P (2004) A dialogue game protocol for multi-agent argument over proposals for action. In: Rahwan I, Moraitis P, Reed C (eds) Proceedings of the first international workshop on argumentation in multi-agent systems (ArgMAS’04). Springer, Berlin, pp 149–161

    Google Scholar 

  3. Baroni P, Caminada M, Giacomin M (2011) An introduction to argumentation semantics. Knowl Eng Rev 26(4):365–410

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Beierle C, Freund B, Kern-Isberner G, Thimm M (2010) Using defeasible logic programming for argumentation-based decision support in private law. In: Baroni P, Cerutti F, Giacomin M, Simari GR (eds) Proceedings of the third international conference on computational models of argument (COMMA’10). IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 87–98

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bench-Capon TJM (2003) Persuasion in practical argument using value based argumentation frameworks. J Logic Comput 13(3):429–448

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  6. Bench-Capon TJM, Dunne PE (2007) Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Artif Intell 171(10–15):619–641

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  7. Besnard P, Hunter A (2008) Elements of argumentation. The MIT Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  8. Black E, Hunter A (2009) An inquiry dialogue system. Auton Agents Multi-Agent Syst 19(2):173–209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Caminada M (2006) Semi-stable semantics. In: Dunne P, Bench-Capon T (eds) Proceedings of the first international conference on computational models of argument (COMMA’06). IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 121–130

    Google Scholar 

  10. Carmel D, Markovitch S (1996) Learning and using opponent models in adversary search. Technical Report CIS9609, Technion

  11. Dung PM (1995) On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif Intell 77(2):321–358

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  12. Fan X, Toni F (2012) Mechanism design for argumentation-based persuasion. In: Verheij B, Szeider S, Woltran S (eds) Proceedings of the fourth international conference on computational models of argument (COMMA’12). IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 322–333

    Google Scholar 

  13. Fermé EL, Gabbay DM, Simari GR (eds) (2013) Trends in belief revision and argumentation dynamics. College Publications, London

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Garcia A, Simari GR (2004) Defeasible logic programming: an argumentative approach. Theory Pract Logic Program 4(1–2):95–138

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  15. Grossi D, van der Hoek W (2013) Audience-based uncertainty in abstract argument games. In: Rossi F (ed) Proceedings of the 23rd international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI’13), pp 143–149

  16. Hadidi N, Dimopoulos Y, Moraitis P (2012) Tactics and concessions for argumentation-based negotiation. In: Verheij B, Szeider S, Woltran S (eds) Proceedings of the fourth international conference on computational models of argument (COMMA’12). IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 285–296

    Google Scholar 

  17. Hadjinikolis C, Siantos Y, Modgil S, Black E, McBurney P (2013) Opponent modelling in persuasion dialogues. In: Rossi F (ed) Proceedings of the 23rd international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI’13), pp 164–170

  18. Karunatillake NC, Jennings NR, Rahwan I, McBurney P (2009) Dialogue games that agents play within a society. Artif Intell 173(9–10):935–981

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Kok EM, Meyer JJC, Prakken H, Vreeswijk GAW (2010) A formal argumentation framework for deliberation dialogues. In: McBurney P, Rahwan I, Parsons S (eds) Proceedings of the seventh international workshop on argumentation in multi-agent systems (ArgMAS 2010), pp 73–90

  20. McBurney P, Parsons S, Rahwan I (eds) Proceedings of the eighth international workshop on argumentation in multi-agent systems (ArgMAS’12), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 7543. Springer, Berlin

  21. McBurney P, Parsons S, Wooldridge M (2002) Desiderata for agent argumentation protocols. In: Gini M, Ishida T, Castelfranchi C, Johnson WL (eds) Proceedings of the first international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS’02)

  22. Oren N, Atkinson K, Li H (2012) Group persuasion through uncertain audience modelling. In: Verheij B, Szeider S, Woltran S (eds) Proceedings of the fourth international conference on computational models of argument (COMMA’12). IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 350–357

    Google Scholar 

  23. Oren N, Norman TJ (2010) Arguing using opponent models. In: McBurney P, Rahwan I, Parsons S, Maudet N (eds) Proceedings of the sixth international workshop on argumentation in multi-agent systems (ArgMAS’09). Springer, Berlin, pp 160–174

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  24. Pan S, Larson K, Rahwan I (2010) Argumentation mechanism design for preferred semantics. In: Baroni P, Cerutti F, Giacomin M, Simari GR (eds) Proceedings of the third international conference on computational models of argument (COMMA’10). IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 403–414

    Google Scholar 

  25. Poundstone W (1988) Labyrinths of reason: paradox. Puzzles and the frailty of knowledge. Penguin Books, USA

    Google Scholar 

  26. Prakken H (2006) Formal systems for persuasion dialogue. Knowl Eng Rev 21:163–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Prakken H (2010) An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. Argum Comput 1(2):93–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Procaccia AD, Rosenschein JS (2005) Extensive-form argumentation games. In: Proceedings of the third European workshop on multi-agent systems (EUMAS’05), pp 312–322

  29. Rahwan I, Larson K (2008) Mechanism design for abstract argumentation. In: Padgham L, Parkes D (eds) Proceedings of seventh international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS’08), pp 1031–1038

  30. Rahwan I, Larson K (2009) Argumentation and game theory. In: Rahwan I, Simari GR (eds) Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Springer, Berlin, pp 321–339

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  31. Rahwan I, Larson K, Tohmé F (2009) A characterisation of strategy-proofness for grounded argumentation semantics. In: Boutilier C (ed) Proceedings of the 21st international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI’09), pp 251–256

  32. Rahwan I, Tohmé F (2010) Collective argument evaluation as judgement aggregation. In: van der Hoek W, Kaminka GA, Lespérance Y, Luck M, Sen S (eds) Proceedings of the ninth international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS 2010), pp 417–424

  33. Rienstra T, Thimm M, Oren N (2013) Opponent models with uncertainty for strategic argumentation. In: Rossi F (ed) Proceedings of the 23rd international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI’13), pp 332–338

  34. Riveret R, Prakken H, Rotolo A, Sartor G (2008) Heuristics in argumentation: a game-theoretical investigation. In: Besnard P, Doutre S, Hunter A (eds) Proceedings of the second international conference on computational models of argument (COMMA’08). IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 324–335

    Google Scholar 

  35. Roth B, Riveret R, Rotolo A, Governatori G (2007) Strategic argumentation: a game theoretical investigation. In: Gardner A, Winkels R (eds) Proceedings of the eleventh international conference on artificial intelligence and law (ICAIL’07). ACM Press, Amsterdam, pp 81–90

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  36. Thang PM, Dung PM, Hung ND (2012) Towards argument-based foundation for sceptical and credulous dialogue games. In: Verheij B, Szeider S, Woltran S (eds) Proceedings of the fourth international conference on computational models of argument (COMMA’12). IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 398–409

    Google Scholar 

  37. Thimm M, Garcia AJ (2010) Classification and strategical issues of argumentation games on structured argumentation frameworks. In: van der Hoek W, Kaminka GA, Lespérance Y, Luck M, Sen S (eds) Proceedings of the ninth international joint conference on autonomous agents and multi-agent systems (AAMAS’10), pp 1247–1254

  38. Thimm M, Garcia AJ, Kern-Isberner G, Simari GR (2008) Using collaborations for distributed argumentation with defeasible logic programming. In: Pagnucco M, Thielscher M (eds) Proceedings of the twelfth international workshop on non-monotonic reasoning (NMR’08). University of New South Wales, Technical Report No. UNSW-CSE-TR-0819, pp 179–188

  39. Thimm M, Kern-Isberner G (2008) A distributed argumentation framework using defeasible logic programming. In: Besnard P, Doutre S, Hunter A (eds) Proceedings of the second international conference on computational models of argument (COMMA’08). IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 381–392

    Google Scholar 

  40. Walton DN, Krabbe ECW (1995) Commitment in dialogue: basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. SUNY Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I thank Tjitze Rienstra, Nir Oren, Tony Hunter, Gabriele Kern-Isberner, and Alejandro García for valuable discussions on the topic of computational models of argumentation in general and strategic argumentation in particular.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Web Science and Technologies, Universität Koblenz-Landau, Universitätsstr. 1, 56070, Koblenz, Germany

    Matthias Thimm

Authors
  1. Matthias Thimm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matthias Thimm.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Thimm, M. Strategic Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems. Künstl Intell 28, 159–168 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13218-014-0307-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13218-014-0307-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation