Settling on the Group’s Goals: An n-Person Argumentation Game Approach
Argumentation games have been proved to be a robust and flexible tool to resolve conflicts among agents. An agent can propose its explanation and its goal known as a claim, which can be refuted by other agents. The situation is more complicated when there are more than two agents playing the game.
We propose a weighting mechanism for competing premises to tackle with conflicts from multiple agents in an n-person game. An agent can defend its proposal by giving a counter-argument to change the “opinion” of the majority of opposing agents. During the game, an agent can exploit the knowledge that other agents expose in order to promote and defend its main claim.
KeywordsBackground Knowledge Main Claim Dialogue Game Superiority Relation Defeasible Reasoning
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 2.Jennings, N.R., Parsons, S., Noriega, P., Sierra, C.: On argumentation-based negotiation. In: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Multi-Agent Systems, pp. 1–7 (1998)Google Scholar
- 5.Antoniou, G., Billington, D., Governatori, G., Maher, M.J.: A flexible framework for defeasible logics. In: Proc. American National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 401–405 (2000)Google Scholar
- 12.Bench-Capon, T.J.: Specification and implementation of Toulmin dialogue game. In: Hage, J.C., Bench-Capon, T.J.M., Koers, A.W., de Vey Mestdagh, C.N.J., Grutters, C.A.F.M. (eds.) Jurix 1998, pp. 5–20 (1998)Google Scholar
- 14.Amgoud, L., Dimopoulos, Y., Moraitis, P.: A unified and general framework for argumentation-based negotiation. In: Proceedings of the 6th international joint conference on AAMAS, pp. 1–8 (2007)Google Scholar
- 15.Rueda, S.V., Garcia, A.J., Simari, G.R.: Argument-based negotiation among bdi agents. Journal of Computer Science and Technology 2(7), 1–8 (2002)Google Scholar
- 16.Letia, I.A., Vartic, R.: Defeasible protocols in persuasion dialogues. In: WI-IATW 2006: Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE/WIC/ACM international conference on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology, pp. 359–362 (2006)Google Scholar
- 17.Hamfelt, A., Eriksson, J., Nilsson, J.F.: A metalogic formalization of legal argumentation as game trees with defeasible reasoning. In: ICAIL 2005: Proceedings of the 10th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, pp. 250–251. ACM, New York (2005)Google Scholar