An Asymmetric Protocol for Argumentation Games in Defeasible Logic

  • Jenny Eriksson Lundström
  • Guido Governatori
  • Subhasis Thakur
  • Vineet Padmanabhan
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5044)


Agent interactions where the agents hold conflicting goals could be modelled as adversarial argumentation games. In many real-life situations (e.g., criminal litigation, consumer legislation), due to ethical, moral or other principles governing interaction, the burden of proof, i.e., which party is to lose if the evidence is balanced [22], is a priori fixed to one of the parties. Analogously, when resolving disputes in a heterogeneous agent-system the unequal importance of different agents for carrying out the overall system goal need to be accounted for. In this paper we present an asymmetric protocol for an adversarial argumentation game in Defeasible Logic, suggesting Defeasible Logic as a general representation formalism for argumentation games modelling agent interactions.


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)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Antoniou, G., Billington, D., Governatori, G., Maher, M.J.: Embedding Defeasible Logic in Logic Programming. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 6(6), 703–735 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    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
  4. 4.
    Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Specification and Implementation of Toulmin Dialogue Game. In: Proc. JURIX 1998, Nijmegen, GNI, pp. 5–20 (1984)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Billington, D.: Defeasible logic is stable. J. Log. and Comput. 3, 370–400 (1993)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming, and n–person games. Artif. Intel. 77, 321–357 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dung, P.M., Kowalski, R.A., Toni, F.: Dialectic proof procedures for assumption-based, admissible argumentation. Artif. Intel. 170, 114–159 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gordon, T.: The Pleadings Game: An artificial Intelligence Model of Procedural Justice. Artif. Intel. and Law 2(4) (1993)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Governatori, G., Maher, M.J., Billington, D., Antoniou, G.: Argumentation semantics for defeasible logics. J. Log. and Comput. 14(5), 675–702 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Governatori, G., Rotolo, A.: Defeasible logic: Agency, intention and obligation. In: Lomuscio, A., Nute, D. (eds.) DEON 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3065, pp. 114–128. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Governatori, G., Rotolo, A., Padmanabhan, V.: The cost of social agents. In: Proc. AAMAS 2006, pp. 513–520. ACM Press, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    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
  13. 13.
    Eriksson Lundström, J., Hamfelt, A., Fischer Nilsson, J.: A Rule-Sceptic Characterization of Acceptable Legal Arguments. In: Proc. ICAIL 2007, pp. 283–284. ACM Press, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hamfelt, A., Eriksson Lundström, J., Fischer Nilsson, J.: A metalogic formalization of legal argumentation as game trees with defeasible reasoning. In: Proc. ICAIL 2005, pp. 250–251. ACM Press, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Letia, I.A., Varic, R.: Defeasible protocols in persuasion dialogues. In: Proc. WE-IAT 2006. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2006)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lodder, A.R.: DiaLaw: On Legal Justification and Dialogical Models of Argumentation. Artif. Intel. and Law 8(2-3), 265–276 (2000)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    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
  18. 18.
    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
  19. 19.
    Prakken, H.: Modelling defeasibility in law:logic or procedure? Fundamenta informaticae, 253–271 (2001)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: Rules about rules: Assessing conflicting arguments in legal reasoning. Artif. Intel. and Law, 331–368 (1996)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: Presumptions and burdens of proof. In: Proc. Jurix 2006, pp. 21–30. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2006)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    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
  23. 23.
    Prakken, H.: Relating protocols for dynamic dispute with logics for defeasible argumentation. Synthese 127, 187–219 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    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
  25. 25.
    Thakur, S., Governatori, G., Padmanabhan Nair, 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
  26. 26.
    Vreeswijk, G.: Abstract Argumentation Systems. Artif. Intel. 90, 225–279 (1997)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Vreeswijk, G.: Representation of formal dispute with a standing order. Artif. Intel. and Law 8(2/3), 205–231 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jenny Eriksson Lundström
    • 1
  • Guido Governatori
    • 2
  • Subhasis Thakur
    • 2
  • Vineet Padmanabhan
    • 3
  1. 1.Dept. of Information Science, Computer Science DivisionUppsala UniversitySweden
  2. 2.School of ITEEThe University of QueenslandBrisbaneAustralia
  3. 3.Dept. of Computer & Information SciencesUniversity of HyderabadIndia

Personalised recommendations