Arguing with Confidential Information

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 a heuristic that implements one such strategy. The 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 this heuristic may operate, and show how it functions within the framework. Finally, we discuss how this heuristic may be extended in future work, and its relevance to argumentation theory in general.

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

[2]  Ana Gabriela Maguitman,et al.  Logical models of argument , 2000, CSUR.

[3]  Peter McBurney,et al.  Risk Agoras: Dialectical Argumentation for Scientific Reasoning , 2000, UAI.

[4]  Bart Verheij,et al.  DefLog: on the Logical Interpretation of Prima Facie Justified Assumptions , 2003, J. Log. Comput..

[5]  Nicolas Maudet,et al.  Strategical considerations for argumentative agents (preliminary report) , 2002, Non-Monotonic Reasoning.

[6]  Katia Sycara,et al.  Persuasive argumentation in negotiation , 1990 .

[7]  Henry Prakken,et al.  A study of accrual of arguments, with applications to evidential reasoning , 2005, ICAIL '05.

[8]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon Specification and Implementation of Toulmin Dialogue Game , 1999 .

[9]  Nicolas Maudet,et al.  Layered Strategies and Protocols for Argumentation-Based Agent Interaction , 2004, ArgMAS.

[10]  Douglas Walton,et al.  Legal argumentation and evidence , 2002 .

[11]  Antonis C. Kakas,et al.  Computational Logic: Logic Programming and Beyond: Essays in Honour of Robert A. Kowalski, Part I , 2002 .

[12]  Henry Prakken,et al.  A dialectical model of assessing conflicting arguments in legal reasoning , 1996, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[13]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Logics for Defeasible Argumentation , 2001 .

[14]  D. Walton,et al.  Commitment In Dialogue , 1995 .

[15]  John L. Pollock,et al.  Perceiving and Reasoning about a Changing World , 1998, Comput. Intell..

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

[17]  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..

[18]  DungPhan Minh On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games , 1995 .