Abstract
While researchers have looked at many aspects of argumentation, an area often neglected is that of argumentation strategies. That is, given multiple possible arguments that an agent can put forth, which should be selected in what circumstances. In this paper, we propose two related heuristics that allow an agent to select what utterances to make. The first involves minimising the amount of information revealed in the course of a dialogue. The second heuristic assigns a utility cost to revealing information, as well as a utility to winning, drawing and losing an argument. An agent participating in a dialogue then attempts to maximise its utility. We present a formal argumentation framework in which these heuristics may operate, and show how they function within the framework. Finally, we discuss extensions to the heuristics, and their relevance to argumentation theory in general.
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
Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: Computational Logic: Logic Programming and Beyond. In: Pauli, J. (ed.) Learning-Based Robot Vision. LNCS, vol. 2048, pp. 342–380. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)
Walton, D.N., Krabbe, E.C.W.: Commitment in Dialogue. State University of New York Press (1995)
Chesñevar, C.I., Maguitman, A.G., Loui, R.P.: Logical models of argument. ACM Computing Surveys 32(4), 337–383 (2000)
Prakken, H., Vreeswijk, G.: Logics for defeasible argumentation. In: Handbook of Philosophical Logic, 2nd edn., vol. 4, pp. 218–319. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2002)
Walton, D.N.: Legal argumentation and evidence. Penn State Press (2002)
McBurney, P., Parsons, S.: Risk agoras: Dialectical argumentation for scientific reasoning. In: Proc. of the 16th Conf. on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, Stanford, USA, pp. 371–379 (2000)
Moore, D.: Dialogue game theory for intelligent tutoring systems. PhD thesis, Leeds Metropolitan University (1993)
Amgoud, L., Maudet, N.: Strategical considerations for argumentative agents (preliminary report). In: NMR, pp. 399–407 (2002)
Prakken, H.: A study of accrual of arguments, with applications to evidential reasoning. In: Proc. of the 10th Int. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pp. 85–94 (2005)
Kakas, A.C., Maudet, N., Moraitis, P.: Layered strategies and protocols for argumentation-based agent interaction. In: Rahwan, I., Moraïtis, P., Reed, C. (eds.) ArgMAS 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3366, pp. 64–77. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)
Amgoud, L., Prade, H.: Reaching agreement through argumentation: a possiblistic approach. In: Proc. of KR 2004 (2004)
Cayrol, C., Doutre, S., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.C., Mengin, J.: ” minimal defence”: a refinement of the preferred semantics for argumentation frameworks. In: Proc. of NMR-2002 (2002)
Bench-Capon, T.J.: Specification and implementation of Toulmin dialogue game. In: Proc. of JURIX 1998, pp. 5–20 (1998)
Chesñevar, C.I., Simari, G.R., Godo, L.: Computing dialectical trees efficiently in possibilistic defeasible logic programming. In: Baral, C., Greco, G., Leone, N., Terracina, G. (eds.) LPNMR 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3662, pp. 158–171. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)
Reed, C.A., Walton, D.N.: Applications of argumentation schemes. In: Hansen, H.V., Tindale, C.W., Blair, J.A., Johnson, R.H., Pinto, R.C. (eds.) OSSA 2001, Windsor, Canada (2001) CD ROM
Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence 77(2), 321–357 (1995)
Oren, N., Preece, A., Norman, T.J.: Argument based contract enforcement. In: Proceedings of AI-2006, Cambridge, UK (2006)
Simari, G.R., Loui, R.P.: A mathematical treatment of defeasible reasoning and its implementation. Artif. Intell. 53(2-3), 125–157 (1992)
Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: A dialectical model of assessing conflicting arguments in legal reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law 4, 331–368 (1996)
Sycara, K.: Persuasive argumentation in negotiation. Theory and Decision 28(3), 203–242 (1990)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2007 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Oren, N., Norman, T.J., Preece, A. (2007). Information Based Argumentation Heuristics. In: Maudet, N., Parsons, S., Rahwan, I. (eds) Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems. ArgMAS 2006. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 4766. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-75526-5_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-75526-5_10
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-75525-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-75526-5
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)