Abstract
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.
This paper is a slightly amended version of our AAMAS contribution [2].
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Bench-Capon, T.: Value-based argumentation frameworks. In: Proc. of the 9th Int. Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning (NMR 2002), pp. 443–454 (2002)
Bonzon, E., Maudet, N.: On the outcomes of multiparty persuasion. In: Proc. of AAMAS 2011, pp. 47–54 (2011)
Caminada, M., Pigozzi, G.: On judgment aggregation in abstract argumentation. Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems 22, 64–102 (2011)
Cartwright, D., Atkinson, K.: Using computational argumentation to support e-participation. IEEE Intelligent Systems 24(5), 42–52 (2009)
Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.-C.: Graduality in argumentation. J. Artif. Intell. Res. (JAIR) 23, 245–297 (2005)
Coste-Marquis, S., Devred, C., Konieczny, S., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.-C., Marquis, P.: On the Merging of Dung’s Argumentation Systems. Artificial Intelligence 171, 740–753 (2007)
Dignum, F.P.M., Vreeswijk, G.A.W.: Towards a Testbed for Multi-party Dialogues. In: Dignum, F.P.M. (ed.) ACL 2003. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2922, pp. 212–230. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)
Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-persons games. Artificial Intelligence 77, 321–357 (1995)
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)
Leite, J., Martins, J.: Social abstract argumentation. In: Proc. of IJCAI 2011, pp. 2287–2292 (2011)
Loui, R.: Process and policy: Resource-bounded nondemonstrative reasoning. Computational Intelligence 14(1), 1–38 (2002)
Parsons, S., Wooldridge, M., Amgoud, L.: Properties and complexity of some formal inter-agent dialogues. Journal of Logic and Computation 13(3), 347–376 (2003)
Pham, D.H., Governatori, G., Thakur, S.: Extended defeasible reasoning for common goals in n-person argumentation games. Journal of Universal Computer Science 15(13), 2653–2675 (2009)
Prakken, H.: Coherence and flexibility in dialogue games for argumentation. Journal of Logic and Computation 15, 347–376 (2005)
Prakken, H.: Formal systems for persuasion dialogue. Knowledge Engineering Review 15, 1009–1040 (2005)
Rahwan, I., Larson, K.: Pareto optimality in abstract argumentation. In: Proc. of the 23rd Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2008), pp. 150–155 (2008)
Rahwan, I., Larson, K.: Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence. In: Argumentation and Game Theory, pp. 321–339. Springer (2009)
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)
Tohmé, F.A., Bodanza, G.A., Simari, G.R.: Aggregation of Attack Relations: A Social-Choice Theoretical Analysis of Defeasibility Criteria. In: Hartmann, S., Kern-Isberner, G. (eds.) FoIKS 2008. LNCS, vol. 4932, pp. 8–23. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)
Toni, F., Torroni, P.: Bottom-Up Argumentation. In: Modgil, S., Oren, N., Toni, F. (eds.) TAFA 2011. LNCS, vol. 7132, pp. 249–262. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)
Wardeh, M., Bench-Capon, T., Coenen, F.: Multi-Party Argument from Experience. In: McBurney, P., Rahwan, I., Parsons, S., Maudet, N. (eds.) ArgMAS 2009. LNCS, vol. 6057, pp. 216–235. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Bonzon, E., Maudet, N. (2012). On the Outcomes of Multiparty Persuasion. In: McBurney, P., Parsons, S., Rahwan, I. (eds) Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems. ArgMAS 2011. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 7543. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33152-7_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33152-7_6
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-33151-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-33152-7
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)