Settling on the Group’s Goals: An n-Person Argumentation Game Approach

  • Duy Hoang Pham
  • Subhasis Thakur
  • Guido Governatori
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5357)


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.


Background Knowledge Main Claim Dialogue Game Superiority Relation Defeasible Reasoning 
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.
    Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: A dialectical model of assessing conflicting arguments in legal reasoning. Artificial Intellifgence and Law 4, 331–368 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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
  3. 3.
    Parsons, S., McBurney, P.: Argumentation-based dialogues for agent coordination. Group Decision and Negotiation (12), 415–439 (2003)CrossRefGoogle 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(2), 321–358 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 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
  6. 6.
    Maher, M.J., Rock, A., Antoniou, G., Billignton, D., Miller, T.: Efficient defeasible reasoning systems. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence Tools 10(4), 483–501 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Billington, D.: Defeasible logic is stable. Journal of Logic and Computation 3, 370–400 (1993)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Antoniou, G., Billington, D., Governatori, G., Maher, M.J.: Representation results for defeasible logic. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic 2(2), 255–287 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Antoniou, G., Billington, D., Governatori, G., Maher, M.J.: Embedding defeasible logic into logic programming. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 6(6), 703–735 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Maher, M.J.: Propositional defeasible logic has linear complexity. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 1(6), 691–711 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Governatori, G., Maher, M.J., Antoniou, G., Billington, D.: Argumentation Semantics for Defeasible Logic. J. Logic Computation 14(5), 675–702 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 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
  13. 13.
    Lodder, A.R.: Thomas F. Gordon, The Pleadings Game – an artificial intelligence model of procedural justice. Artif. Intell. Law 8(2/3), 255–264 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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. 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. 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. 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
  18. 18.
    Thakur, S., Governatori, G., Padmanabhan, V., Eriksson Lundström, J.: Dialogue games in defeasible logic. In: Orgun, M.A., Thornton, J. (eds.) AI 2007. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4830, pp. 497–506. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Duy Hoang Pham
    • 1
    • 2
  • Subhasis Thakur
    • 1
  • Guido Governatori
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Information Technology and Electrical EngineeringThe University of QueenslandBrisbaneAustralia
  2. 2.Queensland Research LaboratoryNational ICT AustraliaAustralia

Personalised recommendations