Extended Defeasible Reasoning for Common Goals in n-Person Argumentation Games

نویسندگان

  • Duy Hoang Pham
  • Guido Governatori
  • Subhasis Thakur
چکیده

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. Furthermore, using the extended defeasible reasoning an agent can exploit the knowledge that other agents expose in order to promote and defend its main claim.

برای دانلود رایگان متن کامل این مقاله و بیش از 32 میلیون مقاله دیگر ابتدا ثبت نام کنید

ثبت نام

اگر عضو سایت هستید لطفا وارد حساب کاربری خود شوید

منابع مشابه

An Asymmetric Protocol for Argumentation Games in Defeasible Logic

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 [21], is a priori fixed to one of the parties. Analogously, w...

متن کامل

Defeasible Logic to Model n-person Argumentation Game

In multi-agent systems, an individual agent can pursue its own goals, which may conflict with those hold by other agents. To settle on a common goal for the group of agents, the argumentation/dialogue game provides a robust and flexible tool where an agent can send its explanation for its goal in order to convince other agents. In the setting that the number of agents is greater than two and th...

متن کامل

Labellings and Games for Extended Argumentation Frameworks

Dung’s abstract theory of argumentation has become established as a general framework for various species of non-monotonic reasoning, and reasoning in the presence of conflict. A Dung framework consists of arguments related by attacks, and the extensions of a framework, and so the status of arguments, are defined under different semantics. Developments of Dung’s work have also defined argument ...

متن کامل

Argumentation with Defeasible Conditionals: a Preliminary Report (extended Abstract)

This paper investigates the relation between logics for defeasible conditionals and systems for defeasible argumentation. Starting from the assumption that the construction of arguments and the comparison of incompatible arguments are independent phenomena, it is argued that connict resolution plays a role not only in reasoning with, but also in reasoning about defaults. Since in the latter pha...

متن کامل

An Argumentation Based Semantics for Agent Reasoning

A key challenge for agent architectures and programming paradigms is to account for defeasible reasoning over mental attitudes and to provide associated conflict resolution mechanisms. A growing body of work is looking to address these challenges by proposing argumentation based approaches to agent defeasible and practical reasoning. This work conforms to Dung’s seminal argumentation semantics....

متن کامل

ذخیره در منابع من


  با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید

عنوان ژورنال:
  • J. UCS

دوره 15  شماره 

صفحات  -

تاریخ انتشار 2009