Abstract
[16, 18] introduced a model of corruption within strategic argumentation, and showed that some forms of strategic argumentation are resistant to two forms of corruption: collusion and espionage. Such a model provides a (limited) basis on which to trust agents acting on our behalf. However, that work only addressed the grounded and stable argumentation semantics. Here we extend this work to several other well-motivated semantics. We must consider a greater number of strategic aims that players may have, as well as the greater variety of semantics. We establish the complexity of several computational problems related to corruption in strategic argumentation, for the aims and semantics we study. From these results we identify that strategic argumentation under the aims and semantics we study is resistant to espionage. Resistance to collusion varies according to the player’s aim and the argumentation semantics, and we present a complete picture for the aims and semantics we address.
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
References
Antoniou, G., Billington, D., Governatori, G., Maher, M.J.: A flexible framework for defeasible logics. In: AAAI/IAAI, pp. 405–410. AAAI Press/The MIT Press (2000)
Baroni, P., Caminada, M., Giacomin, M.: An introduction to argumentation semantics. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 26(4), 365–410 (2011). http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0269888911000166
Bartholdi, J.J., Tovey, C.A., Trick, M.A.: The computational difficulty of manipulating an election. Soc. Choice Welf. 6(3), 227–241 (1989)
Baumann, R., Brewka, G.: Expanding argumentation frameworks: enforcing and monotonicity results. In: COMMA, pp. 75–86 (2010)
Bondarenko, A., Dung, P.M., Kowalski, R.A., Toni, F.: An abstract, argumentation-theoretic approach to default reasoning. Artif. Intell. 93, 63–101 (1997)
Dimopoulos, Y., Torres, A.: Graph theoretical structures in logic programs and default theories. Theor. Comput. Sci. 170(1–2), 209–244 (1996). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3975(96)80707–9
Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif. Intell. 77(2), 321–358 (1995)
Dunne, P.E.: The computational complexity of ideal semantics. Artif. Intell. 173(18), 1559–1591 (2009). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2009.09.001
Dunne, P.E., Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Coherence in finite argument systems. Artif. Intell. 141(1/2), 187–203 (2002). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0004-3702(02)00261–8
Dunne, P.E., Dvořák, W., Woltran, S.: Parametric properties of ideal semantics. Artif. Intell. 202, 1–28 (2013). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2013.06.004
Dvořák, W.: On the complexity of computing the justification status of an argument. In: Modgil, S., Oren, N., Toni, F. (eds.) TAFA 2011. LNCS, vol. 7132, pp. 32–49. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)
Dvořák, W., Woltran, S.: Complexity of semi-stable and stage semantics in argumentation frameworks. Inf. Process. Lett. 110(11), 425–430 (2010). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ipl.2010.04.005
Gordon, T.F., Walton, D.: Proof burdens and standards. In: Rahwan, I., Simari, G. (eds.) Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 239–260. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)
Governatori, G., Olivieri, F., Scannapieco, S., Rotolo, A., Cristani, M.: Strategic argumentation is NP-complete. In: Proceedings of the European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 399–404 (2014)
Johnson, D.S.: A catalog of complexity classes. In: Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science, Volume A: Algorithms and Complexity, pp. 67–161. Elsevier (1990)
Maher, M.J.: Complexity of exploiting privacy violations in strategic argumentation. In: Proceedings of the Pacific Rim International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 523–535 (2014)
Maher, M.J.: Relating concrete argumentation formalisms and abstract argumentation. In: Technical Communications of International Conference on Logic Programming (2015)
Maher, M.J.: Resistance to corruption of strategic argumentation. In: AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (2016)
Prakken, H.: An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. Argument Comput. 1, 93–124 (2010)
Rahwan, I., Larson, K., Tohmé, F.A.: A characterisation of strategy-proofness for grounded argumentation semantics. In: Boutilier, C. (ed.) IJCAI, pp. 251–256 (2009)
Toda, S.: PP is as hard as the polynomial-time hierarchy. SIAM J. Comput. 20(5), 865–877 (1991). http://dx.doi.org/10.1137/0220053
Torán, J.: Complexity classes defined by counting quantifiers. J. ACM 38(3), 753–774 (1991). http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/116825.116858
Wagner, K.W.: The complexity of combinatorial problems with succinct input representation. Acta Inf. 23(3), 325–356 (1986). http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00289117
Wu, Y., Caminada, M.: A labelling-based justification status of arguments. Stud. Logic 3(4), 12–29 (2010)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this paper
Cite this paper
Maher, M.J. (2016). Resistance to Corruption of General Strategic Argumentation. In: Baldoni, M., Chopra, A., Son, T., Hirayama, K., Torroni, P. (eds) PRIMA 2016: Principles and Practice of Multi-Agent Systems. PRIMA 2016. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 9862. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44832-9_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44832-9_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-44831-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-44832-9
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)