Dialogue Games in Defeasible Logic

  • S. Thakur
  • G. Governatori
  • V. Padmanabhan
  • J. Eriksson Lundström
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4830)


In this paper we show how to capture dialogue games in Defeasible Logic. We argue that Defeasible Logic is a natural candidate and general representation formalism to capture dialogue games even with requirements more complex than existing formalisms for this kind of games. We parse the dialogue into defeasible rules with time of the dialogue as time of the rule. As the dialogue evolves we allow an agent to upgrade the strength of unchallenged rules. The proof procedures of [1] are used to determine the winner of a dialogue game.


Inference System Strict Rule Argumentation Framework Dialogue Game Common Argument 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Antoniou, G., Billington, D., Governatori, G., Maher, M.J.: Representation results for defeasible logic. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic 2(2), 255–287 (2001)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    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)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Billington, D.: Defeasible logic is stable. Journal of Logic and Computation 3, 370–400 (1993)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming, and n–person games. Artificial Intelligence 77, 321–357 (1995)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Governatori, G., Maher, M.J., Billington, D., Antoniou, G.: Argumentation semantics for defeasible logics. Journal of Logic and Computation 14(5), 675–702 (2004)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Governatori, G., Rotolo, A.: Defeasible logic: Agency, intention and obligation. In: Lomuscio, A.R., Nute, D. (eds.) DEON 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3065, pp. 114–128. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Governatori, G., Rotolo, A., Padmanabhan, V.: The cost of social agents. In: Proc. AAMAS 2006, pp. 513–520. ACM Press, New York (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Grosof, B.N.: Representing e-commerce rules via situated courteous logic programs in RuleML. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 3(1), 2–20 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lundström, J.E., Hamfelt, A., Nilsson, J.F.: A Rule-Sceptic Characterization of Acceptable Legal Arguments. In: Proc. ICAIL 2007, pp. 283–284. ACM Press, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hamfelt, A., Lundström, J.E., Nilsson, J.F.: A metalogic formalization of legal argumentation as game trees with defeasible reasoning. In: Proc. ICAIL 2005, pp. 250–251. ACM Press, New York (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Letia, I.A., Varic, R.: Defeasible protocols in persuasion dialogues. In: Proc. WE-IAT 2006, IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nute, D.: Defeasible logic. In: Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming, vol. 3, pp. 353–395. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1994)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Prakken, H.: Modelling defeasibility in law:logic or procedure? In: Fundamenta informaticae, pp. 253–271 (2001)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: Rules about rules: Assessing conflicting arguments in legal reasoning. In: Artificial Intelligence and Law, pp. 331–368 (1996)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: Presumaptions and burdens of proof. In: Proc. Jurix 2006, pp. 21–30. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: Formalising arguments about the burden of persuation. In: Proc. ICAIL 2007, pp. 97–106. ACM Press, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Prakken, H.: Relating protocols for dynamic dispute with logics for defeasible argumentation. Synthese 127, 187–219 (2001)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    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)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. Thakur
    • 1
  • G. Governatori
    • 1
  • V. Padmanabhan
    • 2
  • J. Eriksson Lundström
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Information Technology and Electrical Engineering, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, 4072Australia
  2. 2.Dept. of Computer & Information Sciences, University of HyderabadIndia
  3. 3.Uppsala UniversitySweden

Personalised recommendations