NMR08 - Defeasible Logic to Model n-person Argumentation...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Defeasible Logic to Model n-person Argumentation Game Duy Hoang Pham, Subhasis Thakur, Guido Governatori School of Information Technology and Electrical Engineering The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia { pham,subhasis,guido } @itee.uq.edu.au } Abstract In multi-agent systems, an individual agent can pursue its own goals, which may conflict with those hold by other agents. To settle on a common goal for the group of agents, the argumentation/dialogue game provides a robust and flex- ible tool where an agent can send its explanation for its goal in order to convince other agents. In the setting that the num- ber of agents is greater than two and they are equally trustful, it is not clear how to extend existing argumentation/dialogue frameworks to tackle conflicts from many agents. We pro- pose to use the defeasible logic to model the n-person argu- mentation game and to use the majority rule as an additional preference mechanism to tackle conflicts between arguments from individual agents. Introduction In a group of agents, there are several situations requir- ing agents to settle on a common goal despite that each agent can pursue its goals which may conflict with other agents. A simple but efficient method to tackle the prob- lem is to give weights over the goals. However, this method is not robust and limits the autonomy of an indi- vidual agent. Also, the conflicts among agents are likely to arise from a partial view and incomplete information on working environment of individual agents. To settle con- flicts among agents an agent can argue to convince others about its pursued goal and provides evidences to defend its claim. This interaction between agents can be mod- elled as an argumentation game (Prakken & Sartor 1996; Jennings et al. 1998; Parsons & McBurney 2003; Am- goud, Dimopoulos, & Moraitis 2007). In an argumentation game, an agent can propose an explanation for its pursued goal (i.e., an argument), which can be rejected by counter- evidences from other agents. This interaction can be iterated until an agent (the winner) successfully argues its proposal against other agents. The argumentation game approach of- fers a robust and flexible tool for agents to resolve conflicts by evaluating the status of arguments. Dungs argumentation semantics (Dung 1995) is widely recognised to establish re- lationships among arguments. The key notion for a set of arguments is whether a set of arguments is self-consistent and provides the base to derive a conclusion. A conclusion is justified, and thus provable, if there is a set of supporting arguments and all counter-arguments are deficient when we consider the arguments in the set of supporting arguments....
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 05/23/2011 for the course PSYC 2011 taught by Professor > during the Three '11 term at University of Sydney.

Page1 / 8

NMR08 - Defeasible Logic to Model n-person Argumentation...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online