Making Others Believe What They Want

  • Guido Boella
  • Célia Costa da Pereira
  • Andrea G. B. Tettamanzi
  • Leendert van der Torre
Part of the IFIP – The International Federation for Information Processing book series (IFIPAICT, volume 276)

Abstract

We study the interplay between argumentation and belief revision within the MAS framework. When an agent uses an argument to persuade another one, he must consider not only the proposition supported by the argument, but also the overall impact of the argument on the beliefs of the addressee. Different arguments lead to different belief revisions by the addressee. We propose an approach whereby the best argument is defined as the one which is both rational and the most appealing to the addressee.

References

  1. 1.
    G. Boella, C. da Costa Pereira, A. Tettamanzi, G. Pigozzi, and L. van del Torre. What you should believe: Obligations and beliefs. In Proceedings of KI07-Workshop on Dynamics of Knowledge and Belief, 2007.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    G. Boella, C. D. C. Pereira, G. Pigozzi, A. Tettamanzi, and L. van der Torre. Choosing your beliefs. In G. Boella, L. W. N. van der Torre, and H. Verhagen, editors, Normative Multi-agent Systems, volume 07122 of Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings. Internationales Begegnungs- und Forschungszentrum f ür Informatik (IBFI), Schloss Dagstuhl, Germany, 2007.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    C. da Costa Pereira and A. Tettamanzi. Towards a framework for goal revision. In BNAIC 2006, pages 99-106. University of Namur, 2006.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    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
  5. 5.
    J. K. Galbraith. The Affluent Society. Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 1958.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    S. O. Hansson. Logic of belief revision. In E. N. Zalta, editor, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Summer 2006.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    A. Hunter. Making argumentation more believable. In AAAI 2004, pages 269-274, 2004.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    F. Paglieri and C. Castelfranchi. Revising beliefs through arguments: Bridging the gap between argumentation and belief revision in MAS. In I. Rahwan, P. Moraitis, and C. Reed, editors, ArgMAS 2004, volume 3366 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 78-94. Springer, 2005.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    N. D. Rotstein, A. J. Garcia, and G. R. Simari. From desires to intentions through dialectical analysis. In AAMAS ’07, pages 1-3, New York, NY, USA, 2007. ACM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Federation for Information Processing 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Guido Boella
    • 1
  • Célia Costa da Pereira
    • 2
  • Andrea G. B. Tettamanzi
    • 2
  • Leendert van der Torre
    • 3
  1. 1.Dipartimento di Informatica 10149Universita di TorinoTorinoItaly
  2. 2.Dip. Tecnologie dell’InformazioneUniversità degli Studi di MilanoCrema (CR)Italy
  3. 3.Computer Science and Communication L-1359 LuxembourgUniversité du LuxembourgLuxembourg

Personalised recommendations