Proceedings of the Twenty-Third International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence Opponent Models with Uncertainty for Strategic Argumentation

This paper deals with the issue of strategic argumentation in the setting of Dung-style abstract argumentation theory. Such reasoning takes place through the use of opponent models--recursive representations of an agent's knowledge and beliefs regarding the opponent's knowledge. Using such models, we present three approaches to reasoning. The first directly utilises the opponent model to identify the best move to advance in a dialogue. The second extends our basic approach through the use of quantitative uncertainty over the opponent's model. The final extension introduces virtual arguments into the opponent's reasoning process. Such arguments are unknown to the agent, but presumed to exist and interact with known arguments. They are therefore used to add a primitive notion of risk to the agent's reasoning. We have implemented our models and we have performed an empirical analysis that shows that this added expressivity improves the performance of an agent in a dialogue.

[1]  Iyad Rahwan,et al.  Mechanism design for abstract argumentation , 2008, AAMAS.

[2]  Alejandro Javier García,et al.  Classification and strategical issues of argumentation games on structured argumentation frameworks , 2010, AAMAS.

[3]  Sanjay Modgil,et al.  Proof Theories and Algorithms for Abstract Argumentation Frameworks , 2009, Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence.

[4]  Anthony Hunter Some Foundations for Probabilistic Abstract Argumentation , 2012, COMMA.

[5]  Nir Oren,et al.  Arguing Using Opponent Models , 2009, ArgMAS.

[6]  Alun D. Preece,et al.  Arguing with Confidential Information , 2006, ECAI.

[7]  Luc De Raedt,et al.  Proceedings of the 20th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence , 2012 .

[8]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  COMPUTATIONAL MODELS OF ARGUMENT, PROCEEDINGS OF COMMA 2008 , 2008, COMMA 2008.

[9]  Guido Governatori,et al.  Strategic argumentation: a game theoretical investigation , 2007, ICAIL.

[10]  Katia P. Sycara,et al.  Argumentation Schemes for Collaborative Planning , 2011, PRIMA.

[11]  Phan Minh Dung,et al.  On the Acceptability of Arguments and its Fundamental Role in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Logic Programming and n-Person Games , 1995, Artif. Intell..

[12]  Kevin D. Ashley,et al.  Argumentation with Value Judgments - An Example of Hypothetical Reasoning , 2010, JURIX.

[13]  Michael Luck,et al.  Investigating Strategic Considerations in Persuasion Dialogue Games , 2012, STAIRS.

[14]  Nir Oren,et al.  Group Persuasion through Uncertain Audience Modelling , 2012, COMMA.

[15]  David Carmel,et al.  Learning and using opponent models in adversary search , 1996 .

[16]  Antonis C. Kakas,et al.  Computational Logic: Logic Programming and Beyond , 2002, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[17]  Matthias Thimm,et al.  A Probabilistic Semantics for abstract Argumentation , 2012, ECAI.