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 a heuristic that implements one such strategy. The heuristic is built around opponent modelling, and operates by selecting the line of argument that yields maximal utility, based on the opponent’s expected response, as computed by the opponent model. An opponent model may be recursive, with the opponent modelling of the agent captured by the original agent’s opponent model. Computing the utility for each possible line of argument is thus done using a variant of M* search, which in itself is an enhancement of min-max search. After describing the M* algorithm we show how it may be adapted to the argumentation domain, and then study what enhancements are possible for more specific types of dialogue. Finally, we discuss how this heuristic may be extended in future work, and its relevance to argumentation theory in general.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.-C.: On the bipolarity in argumentation frameworks. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Workshop on Non-monotonic Reasoning, pp. 1–9. Whistler, Canada (2004)
Amgoud, L., Maudet, N.: Strategical considerations for argumentative agents (preliminary report). In: Proceedings of the 9th International Workshop on Non-monotonic Reasoning, pp. 399–407 (2002)
Amgoud, L., Prade, H.: Generation and evaluation of different types of arguments in negotiation. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Workshop on Non-monotonic Reasoning (2004)
Besnard, P., Doutre, S., Hunter, A. (eds.): Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2008. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, Toulouse, France, May 28-30, vol. 172. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2008)
Carmel, D., Markovitch, S.: Incorporating opponent models into adversary search. In: Proceedings of the Thirteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 120–125. AAAI, Menlo Park (1996)
Carmel, D., Markovitch, S.: Model-based learning of interaction strategies in multi-agent systems. Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence 10(3), 309–332 (1998)
Donkers, H.H.L.M., Uiterwijk, J.W.H.M., van den Herik, H.J.: Probabilistic opponent-model search. Information Sciences 135(3-4), 123–149 (2001)
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)
Martínez, D.C., García, A.J., Simari, G.R.: Progressive defeat paths in abstract argumentation frameworks. In: Lamontagne, L., Marchand, M. (eds.) Canadian AI 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4013, pp. 242–253. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)
McBurney, P., Parsons, S.: Dialogue games in multi-agent systems. Informal Logic 22(3), 257–274 (2002)
Moore, D.: Dialogue game theory for intelligent tutoring systems. PhD thesis, Leeds Metropolitan University (1993)
Oren, N., Luck, M., Miles, S., Norman, T.J.: An argumentation inspired heuristic for resolving normative conflict. In: Proceedings of The Fifth Workshop on Coordination, Organizations, Institutions, and Norms in Agent Systems (COIN@AAMAS 2008), Estoril, Portugal, pp. 41–56 (2008)
Oren, N., Norman, T.J.: Semantics for evidence-based argumentation. In: Besnard, et al. (eds.) [4], pp. 276–284
Oren, N., Norman, T.J., Preece, A.: Arguing with confidential information. In: Proceedings of the 18th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Riva del Garda, Italy, August 2006, pp. 280–284 (2006)
Oren, N., Norman, T.J., Preece, A.: Loose lips sink ships: a heuristic for argumentation. In: Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems, Hakodate, Japan, May 2006, pp. 121–134 (2006)
Parsons, S., McBurney, P., Sklar, E., Wooldridge, M.: On the relevance of utterances in formal inter-agent dialogues. In: AAMAS 2007: Proceedings of the 6th international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems, pp. 1–8. ACM, New York (2007)
Prakken, H.: Relating protocols for dynamic dispute with logics for defeasible argumentation. Synthese 127, 187–219 (2001)
Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: Computational Logic: Logic Programming and Beyond. In: Essays In Honour of Robert A. Kowalski, Part II. LNCS, vol. 2048, pp. 342–380. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)
Rahwan, I., Larson, K.: Mechanism design for abstract argumentation. In: Proceedings of AAMAS 2008 (2008)
Riveret, R., Prakken, H., Rotolo, A., Sartor, G.: Heuristics in argumentation: A game theory investigation. In: Besnard, et al. (eds.) [4], pp. 324–335
Riveret, R., Rotolo, N., Sartor, G., Prakken, H., Roth, B.: Success chances in argument games: a probabilistic approach to legal disputes. In: Proceedings of the 20th Anniversary International Conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems (Jurix 2007), Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 99–108 (2007)
Shannon, C.E.: Programming a computer for playing chess. Philosophical Magazine 41, 256–275 (1950)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2010 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Oren, N., Norman, T.J. (2010). Arguing Using Opponent Models. In: McBurney, P., Rahwan, I., Parsons, S., Maudet, N. (eds) Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems. ArgMAS 2009. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 6057. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-12805-9_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-12805-9_10
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-12804-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-12805-9
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)