Arguing Using Opponent Models

  • Conference paper
Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems (ArgMAS 2009)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 6057))

Included in the following conference series:

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (Canada)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (Canada)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (Canada)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free ship** worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. 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)

    Google Scholar 

  2. 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)

    Google Scholar 

  3. 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)

    Google Scholar 

  4. 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)

    Google Scholar 

  5. 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)

    Google Scholar 

  6. 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)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. 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)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  8. 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)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  9. 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)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  10. McBurney, P., Parsons, S.: Dialogue games in multi-agent systems. Informal Logic 22(3), 257–274 (2002)

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  11. Moore, D.: Dialogue game theory for intelligent tutoring systems. PhD thesis, Leeds Metropolitan University (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  12. 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)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Oren, N., Norman, T.J.: Semantics for evidence-based argumentation. In: Besnard, et al. (eds.) [4], pp. 276–284

    Google Scholar 

  14. 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)

    Google Scholar 

  15. 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)

    Google Scholar 

  16. 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)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  17. Prakken, H.: Relating protocols for dynamic dispute with logics for defeasible argumentation. Synthese 127, 187–219 (2001)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  18. 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)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Rahwan, I., Larson, K.: Mechanism design for abstract argumentation. In: Proceedings of AAMAS 2008 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Riveret, R., Prakken, H., Rotolo, A., Sartor, G.: Heuristics in argumentation: A game theory investigation. In: Besnard, et al. (eds.) [4], pp. 324–335

    Google Scholar 

  21. 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)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Shannon, C.E.: Programming a computer for playing chess. Philosophical Magazine 41, 256–275 (1950)

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Navigation