Managing Deceitful Arguments with X-Logics

In most works on negotiation dialogues, agents are supposed to be ideally honest. However, there are many situations where such a behaviour cannot always be expected from the agents (e.g. advertising, political negotiation, etc.). The aim of this paper is to reconsider the role of deceitful arguments in argumentation frameworks. We propose a logical tool for representing and handling deceitful arguments in a dialogue between two formal agents having to face their respective knowledge and trying to convince each other. X-logics, a nonmonotonic extension of classical propositional logics, is used as the background formalism for representing the reasoning of the agents on arguments. Starting from a previous work dedicated to the generation of new arguments, we propose to define the notion of lie as a new kind of possible agent's answer. Finally, we describe the way an agent may trick and how the other agent may detect it

[1]  Alexander Bochman,et al.  Brave Nonmonotonic Inference and Its Kinds , 2003, Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence.

[2]  John Fox,et al.  The Knowledge Engineering Review , 1984, The Knowledge Engineering Review.

[3]  Michael Wooldridge,et al.  Properties and Complexity of Some Formal Inter-agent Dialogues , 2003, J. Log. Comput..

[4]  Nicholas Rescher,et al.  Dialectics: A Controversy-Oriented Approach to the Theory of Knowledge , 1977 .

[5]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Coherence and Flexibility in Dialogue Games for Argumentation , 2005, J. Log. Comput..

[6]  Brahim Chaib-draa,et al.  Commitment-based and dialogue-game-based protocols: new trends in agent communication languages , 2002, The Knowledge Engineering Review.

[7]  Guillermo Ricardo Simari,et al.  A Mathematical Treatment of Defeasible Reasoning and its Implementation , 1992, Artif. Intell..

[8]  Paul J. Krause,et al.  Dialectic reasoning with inconsistent information , 1993, UAI.

[9]  Fangzhen Lin,et al.  Argument Systems: A Uniform Basis for Nonmonotonic Reasoning , 1989, KR.

[10]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon Persuasion in Practical Argument Using Value-based Argumentation Frameworks , 2003, J. Log. Comput..

[11]  Vincent Risch,et al.  Toward a logical tool for generating new arguments in an argumentation based framework , 2005, 17th IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence (ICTAI'05).

[12]  Simon Parsons,et al.  Agent Dialogues with Conflicting Preferences , 2001, ATAL.

[13]  Phan Minh Dung,et al.  Dialectic proof procedures for assumption-based, admissible argumentation , 2006, Artif. Intell..

[14]  Anthony Hunter,et al.  A logic-based theory of deductive arguments , 2001, Artif. Intell..

[15]  Gerard Vreeswijk,et al.  Reasoning with Defeasible Arguments: Examples and Applications , 1992, JELIA.

[16]  Claudette Cayrol,et al.  On the Acceptability of Arguments in Preference-based Argumentation , 1998, UAI.

[17]  Pierre Siegel,et al.  A Representation Theorem for Preferential Logics , 1996, KR.

[18]  Brahim Chaib-draa,et al.  A logical model for commitment and argument network for agent communication , 2004, Proceedings of the Third International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, 2004. AAMAS 2004..

[19]  O. Oha Fallacies , 2005 .

[20]  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..