Strategic argumentation: A game theoretical investigation

Roth, Bram, Riveret, Regis, Rotolo, Antonino and Governatori, Guido (2007). Strategic argumentation: A game theoretical investigation. In: Radboud Winkels and Anne Gardner, Eleventh International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law: Proceedings. 11th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL 2007), Stanford, California, U.S.A., (81-90). 4-8 June 2007. doi:10.1145/1276318.1276333

Attached Files (Some files may be inaccessible until you login with your UQ eSpace credentials)
Name Description MIMEType Size Downloads
icail.pdf icail.pdf application/pdf 189.56KB 1267

Author Roth, Bram
Riveret, Regis
Rotolo, Antonino
Governatori, Guido
Title of paper Strategic argumentation: A game theoretical investigation
Conference name 11th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL 2007)
Conference location Stanford, California, U.S.A.
Conference dates 4-8 June 2007
Convener International Association for Artificial Intelligence and Law (IAAIL)
Proceedings title Eleventh International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law: Proceedings
Journal name Proceedings of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law
Place of Publication New York, NY, U.S.A.
Publisher The Association for Computing Machinery
Publication Year 2007
Sub-type Fully published paper
DOI 10.1145/1276318.1276333
Open Access Status File (Author Post-print)
ISBN 9781604233995
Editor Radboud Winkels
Anne Gardner
Start page 81
End page 90
Total pages 10
Language eng
Abstract/Summary Argumentation is modelled as a game where the payoffs are measured in terms of the probability that the claimed conclusion is, or is not, defeasibly provable, given a history of arguments that have actually been exchanged, and given the probability of the factual premises. The probability of a conclusion is calculated using a standard variant of Defeasible Logic, in combination with standard probability calculus. It is a new element of the present approach that the exchange of arguments is analysed with game theoretical tools, yielding a prescriptive and to some extent even predictive account of the actual course of play. A brief comparison with existing argument-based dialogue approaches confirms that such a prescriptive account of the actual argumentation has been almost lacking in the approaches proposed so far.
Subjects 280213 Other Artificial Intelligence
230201 Probability Theory
390302 Jurisprudence and Legal Theory
Keyword Defeasible logic
Game theory
Normative reasoning
References [1] G. Antoniou, D. Billington, G. Governatori, and M. J. Maher. Representation results for defeasible logic. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic, 2(2):255–287, 2001. [2] G. Antoniou, D. Billington, G. Governatori and M. J. Maher. On the Modelling and Analysis of Regulations. In Proceedings of the Australian Conference Information Systems, pages 20-=29, 1999. [3] G. Antoniou, D. Billington, and M. J. Maher. On the analysis of regulations using defeasible rules. In HICSS, 1999. [4] D.G. Baird, R.H. Gertner. R.C. Picker. Game Theory and the Law. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1994. [5] T. Bench-Capon. Post congress tristesse. In Specification and Implementation of Toulmin Dialogue Game, pages pp 5–20. JURIX, 1998. [6] D. Billington. Defeasible logic is stable. Journal of Logic and Computation, 3(4):379–400, 1993. [7] M. Dastani, G. Governatori, A. Rotolo, and L. van der Torre. Programming cognitive agents in defeasible logic. In G. Sutcliffe and A. Voronkov, editors, Logic for Programming, Artificial Intelligence, and Reasoning, 12th International Conference, volume 3835 of LNAI, pages 621–636. Springer, 2005. [8] A.P. Dempster. A generalization of Bayesian inference. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 30:205–247,1968. [9] D. Dubois and H. Prade. Possibility theory, probability theory and multiple-valued logics: A clarification. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 32(1-4):35–66, 2001. [10] H. Geffner and J. Pearl. Conditional Entailment: Bridging Two Approaches to Default Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 53(2-3): pp. 209-244, 1992. [11] T.F. Gordon. The pleadings game: formalizing procedural justice. In ICAIL ’93: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, pages 10–19, New York, NY, USA, 1993. ACM Press. [12] T.F. Gordon. The Pleadings Game. An Artificial Intelligence Model of Procedural Justice. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1995. [13] G. Governatori. Representing business contracts in RuleML. International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems, 14(2-3):181–216, 2005. [14] G. Governatori, M. Dumas, A. H. ter Hofstede, and P. Oaks. A formal approach to protocols and strategies for (legal) negotiation. In H. Prakken, editor, Procedings of the 8th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pages 168–177. ACM Press, 2001. [15] G. Governatori, M.J. Maher, G. Antoniou, and D. Billington. Argumentation semantics for defeasible logic. Journal of Logic and Computation, 14(5):675–702, 2004. [16] G. Governatori, A. Rotolo, and V. Padmanabhan. The cost of social agents. In P. Stone and G. Weiss, editors, 5th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, pages 513–520, New York, 10–12 May 2006. ACM Press. [17] J.C. Hage. Reasoning with Rules. An essay on Legal Reasoning and Its Underlying Logic. Dordrecht: Kluwer Law and Philosophy Library, 1997. [18] J.C. Hage and B. Verheij. Reason-Based Logic: a logic for reasoning with rules and reasons. Law, Computers and Artificial Intelligence, 3(2/3):130–155, 1994. [19] A.R. Lodder. DiaLaw. On legal justification and dialog games. Dissertation Universiteit Maastricht, 1998. [20] M. J. Maher. Propositional defeasible logic has linear complexity. Theory Practice Logic Programming, 1(6):691–711, 2001. [21] D. Nute. Defeasible Reasoning. In Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming (eds. Gabbay, D., Hogger, C. and Robinson, J.), Vol 3. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 353-395, 1994. [22] M. J. Osborne and A. Rubinstein. A Course in Game Theory. MIT Press, 1999. [23] H. Prakken. Coherence and flexibility in dialogue games for argumentation. Journal Logic and Computation, 15(6):1009–1040, 2005. [24] H. Prakken and G. Sartor. A dialectical model of assessing conflicting arguments in legal reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 4(3-4):331–368, 1996. [25] H. Prakken and G. Sartor. Modelling reasoning with precedents in a formal dialogue game. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 6(2-4):231–287, 1998. [26] J. Rawls. A Theory of Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972. [27] A.C. Roth. Case-based reasoning in the law. A formal theory of reasoning by case comparison. Dissertation Universiteit Maastricht, 2003. [28] G. Shafer. A Mathematical Theory of Evidence. Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1976. [29] L. Zadeh. Fuzzy Sets as the Basis for a Theory of Possibility. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 1:3-28, 1978.
Q-Index Code E1
Q-Index Status Provisional Code
Institutional Status UQ
Additional Notes Copyright (c) 2007 ACM Press. Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, to republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee.

Version Filter Type
Citation counts: Scopus Citation Count Cited 15 times in Scopus Article | Citations
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Created: Thu, 19 Apr 2007, 19:19:08 EST by Guido Governatori on behalf of Faculty Of Engineering, Architecture & Info Tech