Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

On a Formal Treatment of Deception in Argumentative Dialogues

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Multi-Agent Systems and Agreement Technologies (EUMAS 2016, AT 2016)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 10207))

Abstract

This paper formalizes a dialogue that includes dishonest arguments in persuasion. We propose a dialogue model that uses a predicted opponent model and define a protocol using this prediction with an abstract argumentation framework. We focus on deception as dishonesty; that is, the case in which an agent hides her knowledge. We define the concepts of dishonest argument and suspicious argument by means of the acceptance of arguments in this model. We show how a dialogue including dishonest arguments proceeds according to the protocol and discuss a condition for a dishonest argument to be accepted without being revealed.

Shizuka Yokohama—Currently, NEC Co., Ltd.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    \(\mathcal{AF}'\) can be calculated without assuming \(\mathcal{UAF}\) and S, if we handle an argumentation framework instantiated with logical formulas. In this case, we construct an argumentation framework by logical deduction from a given set of formulas  [1, 17].

References

  1. Amgoud, L., Maudet, N., Parsons, S.: Modeling dialogues using argumentation. In: ICMAS2000, pp. 31–38 (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Amgoud, L., de Saint-Cyr, F.D.: An axiomatic approach for persuasion dialogs. In: ICTAI 2013, pp. 618–625 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bench-Capon, T.: Persuasion in practice argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. J. Log. Comput. 13(3), 429–448 (2003)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Baroni, P., Caminada, M., Giacomin, G.: An introduction to argumentation semantics. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 26(4), 365–410 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Black, E., Hunter, A.: Reasons and options for updating an opponent model in persuasion dialogues. In: Black, E., Modgil, S., Oren, N. (eds.) TAFA 2015. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 9524, pp. 21–39. Springer, Cham (2015). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-28460-6_2

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. Caminada, M.: Truth, Lies and Bullshit; distinguishing classes of dishonesty. IJCAI Workshop on Social, Simulation, pp. 39–50 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif. Intell. 77, 321–357 (1995)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Hadjinikolis, C., Siantos, Y., Modgil, S., Black, E., McBurney, P.: Opponent modelling in persuasion dialogues. In: IJCAI 2013, pp. 164–170 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Prakken, H.: Formal systems for persuasion dialogue. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 21(2), 163–188 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Prakken, H., Reed, C., Walton, D.: Dialogues about the burden of proof. In: ICAIL 2005, pp. 115–124 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Rahwan, I., Simari, G. (eds.): Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Rahwan, I., Lason, K., Tohmé, F.: A characterization of strategy-proofness for grounded argumentation semantics. In: IJCAI 2009, pp. 251–256 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Rienstra, T., Thimm, M., Oren, N.: Opponent models with uncertainty for strategic argumentation. In: IJCAI 2013, pp. 332–338 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Sakama, C.: Dishonest arguments in debate games. COMMA 2012, pp. 177–184 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Sakama, C., Caminada, M., Herzig, A.: A formal account of dishonesty. Log. J. IGPL 23(2), 259–294 (2015)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  16. Thimm, M., García, A.J.: On strategic argument selection in structured argumentation systems. In: McBurney, P., Rahwan, I., Parsons, S. (eds.) ArgMAS 2010. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 6614, pp. 286–305. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-21940-5_17

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  17. Yokohama, S., Takahashi, K.: What should an agent know not to fail in persuasion? In: Rovatsos, M., Vouros, G., Julian, V. (eds.) EUMAS/AT -2015. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 9571, pp. 219–233. Springer, Cham (2016). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-33509-4_18

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Science and Technology, Kwansei Gakuin University, 2-1, Gakuen, Sanda, 669-1337, Japan

    Kazuko Takahashi & Shizuka Yokohama

Authors
  1. Kazuko Takahashi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shizuka Yokohama
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kazuko Takahashi .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. King’s College London, London, United Kingdom

    Natalia Criado Pacheco

  2. Polytechnic University of Valencia, Valencia, Portugal

    Carlos Carrascosa

  3. Artificial Intelligence Research Institute (IIIA-CSIC), Barcelona, Spain

    Nardine Osman

  4. Polytechnic University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain

    Vicente Julián Inglada

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this paper

Cite this paper

Takahashi, K., Yokohama, S. (2017). On a Formal Treatment of Deception in Argumentative Dialogues. In: Criado Pacheco, N., Carrascosa, C., Osman, N., Julián Inglada, V. (eds) Multi-Agent Systems and Agreement Technologies. EUMAS AT 2016 2016. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 10207. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59294-7_33

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59294-7_33

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-59293-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-59294-7

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation