Deterrence and Defeasibility in Argumentation Process for ALIS Project

  • Michel Rudnianski
  • Hélène Bestougeff
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4884)


Argumentation issues, which are of core importance to ALIS, are addressed through a particular category of qualitative games called Games of Deterrence. The graphs associated with those games are interpreted as sets of inferences sequences between statements in the framework of non-monotonic logic. Thus an argumentation process is interpreted as a game of deterrence, which resolution determines the truth or falsity of statements, and the possible argumentation strategies of the parties.


acceptability ALIS argumentation attack consistency defeasibility game of deterrence graph of deterrence playability rebutting relevance strategy 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    van Benthem, J.: Logic in Games. Lecture Notes and Book Preversion. ILLC (2001)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    van Benthem, J.: Open Problems in Logic and Games. In: Artemov, S., Barringer, H., d’Avila Garcez, A., Lamb, L., Woods, L. (eds.) Essays in Honour of Dov Gabbay, pp. 229–264. King’s College Publications, London (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Harrenstein, P., van der Hoek, W., Meyer, J.J., Witteveen, C.: Boolean games. In: van Benthem, J. (ed.) Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge. Proceedings of the 8th Conference (TARK 2001), pp. 287–298. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (2001)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Harrenstein, P.: Logic in Conflict. PhD thesis, Utrecht University (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bonzon, E., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.C., Lang, J., Zanuttini, B.: Boolean Games Revisited. In: European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI 2006), pp. 265–269. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Aspic Project: Theoretical Framework for Argumentation, Deliverable 2.1 (2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Prakken, H.: AI and Law, Logic and Argument Schemes. In Argumentation 19. Special Issue on The Toulmin Model Today, 303–320 (2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bench-Capon, T.J.M., Dunne, P.E.: Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence. Artificial Intelligence 171, 619–641 (2007)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rudnianski, M.: Deterrence Typology and Nuclear Stability: A Game Theoretic Approach. In: Avenhaus, R., Karkar, H., Rudnianski, M. (eds.) Defense Decision Making, pp. 37–168. Springer, Heidelberg (1991)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rudnianski, M., Bestougeff, H.: Bridging Games and Diplomacy. In: Avenhaus, R., Zartmann, I.W. (eds.) Diplomacy Games: Formal Models and International Negotiation. Springer, Heildelberg (2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rudnianski, M.: Deterrence, Fuzzyness and Causality. In: Proceedings ISAS 1996, Orlando, pp. 473–479 (1998)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rudnianski, M., Bestougeff, H.: Multi-Agent Systems Reliability, Fuzzyness and Deterrence. In: Hinchey, M.G., Rash, J.L., Truszkowski, W.F., Rouff, C.A. (eds.) FAABS 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3228, Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Isaacs, R.: Differential Games. Wiley and Sons, Chichester (1965)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dung, P.M.: On the Acceptability of Arguments and its Fundamental Role in Non-Monotonic Reasoning, Logic Programming and N-Person Games. Artificial Intelligence 77, 321–357 (1995)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Holbech, N., Parsons, S.: A generalization of Dung’s Abstract Framework for Argumentation Arguing with Sets of Attacking Arguments. In: Proceedings of Argmas, pp. 7–21 (2006)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gordon, T., Prakken, H., Walton, D.: The Carneades Model of Argument and Burden of Proof. Artificial Intelligence 171, 875–896 (2007)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: The three faces of Defeasibility in the Law. Ratio Juris 17, 118–139 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Howard, N.: Paradoxes of Rationality: Theory of Metagames and Political Behavior. MIT Press, Cambridge (1971)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michel Rudnianski
    • 1
  • Hélène Bestougeff
    • 1
  1. 1.ORT FranceParisFrance

Personalised recommendations