On the Outcomes of Multiparty Persuasion
In recent years, several bilateral protocols regulating the exchange of arguments between agents have been proposed. When dealing with persuasion, the objective is to arbitrate among conflicting viewpoints. Often, these debates are not entirely predetermined from the initial situation, which means that agents have a chance to influence the outcome in a way that fits their individual preferences. This paper introduces a simple and intuitive protocol for multiparty argumentation, in which several (more than two) agents are equipped with argumentation systems. We further assume that they focus on a (unique) argument (or issue) —thus making the debate two-sided— but do not coordinate. We study what outcomes can (or will) be reached if agents follow this protocol. We investigate in particular under which conditions the debate is pre-determined or not, and whether the outcome coincides with the result obtained by merging the argumentation systems.
KeywordsArgumentation persuasion protocols multiagent systems
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Bench-Capon, T.: Value-based argumentation frameworks. In: Proc. of the 9th Int. Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning (NMR 2002), pp. 443–454 (2002)Google Scholar
- 2.Bonzon, E., Maudet, N.: On the outcomes of multiparty persuasion. In: Proc. of AAMAS 2011, pp. 47–54 (2011)Google Scholar
- 9.Dunne, P., Hunter, A., McBurney, P., Parsons, S., Wooldridge, M.: Inconsistency tolerance in weighted argument systems. In: Proc. of the 8th Int. Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2009), pp. 851–858 (2009)Google Scholar
- 10.Leite, J., Martins, J.: Social abstract argumentation. In: Proc. of IJCAI 2011, pp. 2287–2292 (2011)Google Scholar
- 16.Rahwan, I., Larson, K.: Pareto optimality in abstract argumentation. In: Proc. of the 23rd Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2008), pp. 150–155 (2008)Google Scholar
- 17.Rahwan, I., Larson, K.: Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence. In: Argumentation and Game Theory, pp. 321–339. Springer (2009)Google Scholar
- 18.Rahwan, I., Tohmé, F.A.: Collective argument evaluation as judgement aggregation. In: Proc. of the 10th Int. Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2010), pp. 417–424 (2010)Google Scholar