This paper formalizes a dialogue that includes dishonest arguments in persuasion. We propose a dialogue model that uses a predicted opponent model and define a protocol using this prediction with an abstract argumentation framework. We focus on deception as dishonesty; that is, the case in which an agent hides her knowledge. We define the concepts of dishonest argument and suspicious argument b...

The literature on alternative dispute resolution tends to be dominated by the negotiation model of argumentation. This bargaining argumentation style differs from the argumentation models developed in AI & Law. In recent years several researchers acknowledged the value of argumentation theory for ODR. This paper focuses on an alternative model to supplement that of mere negotiation, namely a fo...

This contribution provides an overview of how argumentation theorists, philosophers, legal theorists and legal philosophers approach questions about the standards for the correctness of legal argumentation. Ideas about the analysis and evaluation of legal argumentation, developed by influential authors in the field, will be examined. The contribution starts with an overview of objectives and me...

argumentation frameworks [Dun95] take a very simple view on argumentation as they do not presuppose any internal structure of an argument. Abstract argumentation frameworks only consider the interactions of arguments by means of an attack relation between arguments. Definition 1 (Abstract Argumentation Framework). An abstract argumentation framework AF is a tuple AF = (Arg,→) where Arg is a set...

Argumentation theory studies the fundamental mechanism humans use in argumentation and explores ways to implement this mechanism on computers. Dung’s approach, presented in [9], is a unifying framework which has played an influential role on argumentation research. In this paper, we show that, a logic programming semantics, called MM, can be used to characterize the preferred argumentation sema...

Many advances in argumentation theory have been made, but the exponential complexity of argumentation-based reasoning has made it impractical to apply argumentation theory. In this paper, we propose a binary decision diagram (BDD) approach to argumentation-based reasoning. In the approach, sets of arguments and defeats are encoded into BDDs so that an argumentation process can work on a set of ...

We tackle the problem of expressing incomplete knowledge in abstract argumentation frameworks originally introduced by Dung [15]. In applications, incomplete argumentation frameworks may arise as intermediate states in an elicitation process, or when merging different beliefs about an argumentation framework’s state, or in cases where complete information cannot be obtained. We consider two spe...

Knowledge plays an important role in argumentation. Yet, recent work shows that standard conceptions of knowledge in epistemology may not be entirely suitable for argumentation. This paper explores the role of knowledge in argumentation, and proposes a notion of knowledge that promises to be more suitable for argumentation by taking account of: its dynamic nature, the defeasibility of our commi...

Multi-agent teamwork is a critical capability in a large number of applications. Yet, despite the considerable progress in teamwork research, the challenge of intra-team conflict resolution has remained largely unaddressed. This chapter presents a system called CONSA, to resolve conflicts using argumentation-based negotiations. The key insight in CONSA(COllaborative Negotiation System based on ...

We show that the ideal sets of an argumentation framework can be characterized by two kinds of logical models: ideal models (2-valued logical models) and p-stable models (2-valued logical models). We also show that the maximal ideal set of an argumentation framework can be characterized by the well-founded+ model (a 3-valued logical model). These results argue for the logical foundations of the...