Introduction Introduction

Argumentation Argumentation
Argumentation dialogue systems Argumentation dialogue systems
Summary Summary

Where are we?

Agent-Based Systems
Semester 2, 2008-09
Last time . . .
Michael Rovatsos ◮ Mechanism design & automated negotiation
mrovatso@inf.ed.ac.uk ◮ Protocols for reaching agreement
◮ Properties of such protocols
◮ Auction protocols and their properties
◮ Automated negotiation
Today . . .
Lecture 4 – Deductive Reasoning Agents ◮ Argumentation in Multiagent Systems
22nd January 2009

Informatics UoE Agent-Based Systems 1 Informatics UoE Agent-Based Systems 194

Introduction Introduction
Argumentation Argumentation
Logic-based argumentation Logic-based argumentation
Argumentation dialogue systems Argumentation dialogue systems
Summary Summary

Game-theoretic negotiation – Limitations Different modes of argument

◮ Game-theoretic negotiation has its advantages
◮ But also some problems
◮ Positions cannot be justified 1. Logical mode (deductive, proof-like, concerned with making
◮ It is often not clear why agreement was reached correct inferences)
◮ Hard to explain to human user how they got best deal
◮ With a better understanding, the other might make more useful
2. Emotional mode (appeals to feelings, attitudes, etc.)
concessions 3. Visceral mode (physical, social aspects)
◮ Positions cannot be changed 4. Kisceral mode (appeals to the intuitive, mystical or religious)
◮ Utilities don’t change as we negotiate ◮ Different types are used in different situations (e.g. logical mode
◮ We cannot model belief change with new information
(hopefully) in courts of law)
◮ In case of irrational behaviour, no methods for recovery
◮ Limitations give rise to argumentation-based negotiation
(exchange of propositions to convince other of truth or falsity of
certain facts)
Informatics UoE Agent-Based Systems 195 Informatics UoE Agent-Based Systems 196
 Introduction Introduction
Argumentation Argumentation
Logic-based argumentation Logic-based argumentation
Argumentation dialogue systems Argumentation dialogue systems
Summary Summary

Logic-based argumentation Logic-based argumentation

◮ “Purest”, most rational kind of argument: in classical logic,
argument = sequence of inferences leading to a conclusion
◮ Write ∆ ⊢ ϕ to denote that sequence of inference steps from
premises ∆ will allow us to establish proposition ϕ
◮ Example argument: ∆ ⊢ mortal (Socrates) where
∆ = {human(Socrates),
human(X ) ⇒ mortal(X )}
◮ Consider arguments of the form Database ⊢ hSentence, Groundsi
where
◮ Database is a possibly inconsistent set of logical formulae
◮ Sentence is a logical formula (the conclusion)
◮ Grounds is a set of logical formulae with Grounds ⊆ Database and
Grounds ⊢ Sentence
Informatics UoE Agent-Based Systems
◮ Database provides agreed common ground
◮ Agents make arguments of the form hSentence, Groundsi in
support of Sentence
◮ Formal model: let ∆ a database, set of all arguments A(∆)
contains pairs Arg = hϕ, Γi, Γ ⊆ ∆ are grounds/support for
argument Γ ⊢ ϕ
◮ Idea: establish whether or not a set of arguments are in favour of
some proposition
◮ Two important classes of arguments:
◮ Non-trivial arguments: hϕ, Γi where Γ consistent
◮ Tautological arguments: hϕ, Γi where Γ = ∅
197 Informatics UoE Agent-Based Systems 198

Introduction Introduction
Argumentation Argumentation
Logic-based argumentation Logic-based argumentation
Argumentation dialogue systems Argumentation dialogue systems
Summary Summary

Logic-based argumentation Logic-based argumentation

◮ ϕ attacks ψ iff ϕ ≡ ¬ψ ◮ Define argument
◮ hϕ1 , Γ1 i rebuts hϕ2 , Γ2 i if ϕ1 attacks ϕ2 Arg1 = hmortal(Heracles), {human(Heracles), human(X ) ⇒ mortal(X )}i
◮ hϕ1 , Γ1 i undercuts hϕ2 , Γ2 i if ϕ1 attacks some ψ ∈ Γ2
◮ Rebutting argument for Arg1
◮ hϕ1 , Γ1 i defeats hϕ2 , Γ2 i if it undercuts or rebuts it
◮ Example: Arg2 = h¬mortal(Heracles), {father (Heracles, Zeus),
human(Hercules) father (X , Zeus) ⇒ divine(X ), divine(X ) ⇒ ¬mortal(X )}i
father (Heracles, Zeus) ◮ Arg2 undercut by
father (Apollo, Zeus)
divine(X ) ⇒ ¬mortal(X ) Arg3 = h¬(father (X , Zeus) ⇒ divine(X )), {¬(father (X , Zeus) ⇒ divine(X ))}i
father (X , Zeus) ⇒ divine(X ) ◮ Next, we define an ordering on “power” of arguments
¬(father (X , Zeus) ⇒ divine(X )) ◮ For example, if ∆ = {p ⇒ q, p}, hp ∨ ¬p, ∅i is intuitively stronger
than hq, {p ⇒ q, p}i
Informatics UoE Agent-Based Systems 199 Informatics UoE Agent-Based Systems 200
 Introduction Introduction
Argumentation Argumentation
Logic-based argumentation Logic-based argumentation
Argumentation dialogue systems Argumentation dialogue systems
Summary Summary

Logic-based argumentation Logic-based argumentation

◮ We can identify five classes of argument type in order of increasing

acceptability ◮ In the above examples, Arg1 and Arg2 are mutually rebutting and
◮ A1: The class of all arguments that can be constructed from ∆ thus in A2
◮ A2: The class of all non-trivial arguments that can be constructed
◮ hdivine(Heracles) ∨ ¬divine(Heracles), ∅i is in A5
from ∆ ◮ h¬mortal (apollo), {father (apollo, Zeus), father (X , Zeus) ⇒
◮ A3: The class of all arguments that can be constructed from ∆ divine(X ), divine(X ) ⇒ ¬mortal (X )}i is in A4 (if we assume that
with no rebutting arguments no undercutting arguments are allowed that can be attacked
◮ A4: The class of all arguments that can be constructed from ∆
◮ This model is widely used in argumentation-based systems
with no undercutting arguments ◮ Idea: convince the other agent to carry out some task for you by
◮ A5: The class of all tautological arguments that can be arguing for him actually intending to carry it out
constructed from ∆

Informatics UoE Agent-Based Systems 201 Informatics UoE Agent-Based Systems 202

Introduction Introduction
Argumentation Abstract argumentation Argumentation Abstract argumentation
Argumentation dialogue systems Implemented argumentation agents Argumentation dialogue systems Implemented argumentation agents
Summary Summary

Argumentation dialogue systems Types of dialogue

◮ Now we turn to defining argumentation dialogues in which agents
try to win an argument Typology due to Walton and Krabbe (1995):
◮ Call agents 0 and 1, assume following structure:
◮ Agent 0 attempts to convince 1 of some argument
◮ Agent 1 attempts to rebut or undercut it Type Initial situation Main goal Participants’ aim
Persuasion conflict of opinion resolve the issue persuade other
◮ Agent 0 in turn attempts to defeat 1’s argument
Negotiation conflict of interest make a deal get best deal
◮ And so on . . .
Inquiry general ignorance growth of knowledge find a proof
◮ Moves hPlayer , Arg i are steps in such a dialogue, Player ∈ {0, 1}, Deliberation need for action reach a decision influence outcome
Arg ∈ A(∆) Information personal ignorance spread knowledge gain or pass on
seeking knowledge
◮ A sequence hm0 , . . . mk i is a dialogue history if Eristics conflict/antagonism reaching accommoda- strike other party
◮ Player2i = 0, Player2i +1 for all i ≥ 0 tion
◮ Argi +2 6= Argi , Argi +1 defeats Argi for all i ≥ 0
◮ A dialogue ends if no further moves are possible, the winner is
Playerk
Informatics UoE Agent-Based Systems 203 Informatics UoE Agent-Based Systems 204
 Introduction Introduction
Argumentation Abstract argumentation Argumentation Abstract argumentation
Argumentation dialogue systems Implemented argumentation agents Argumentation dialogue systems Implemented argumentation agents
Summary Summary

Abstract argumentation Abstract argumentation

◮ There is a more abstract way of looking at argumentation
◮ Discard logical content of arguments and look just at relationships
between them (Dung, 1995)
◮ An abstract argumentation system A = hX , →i is defined by
◮ a set of arguments X (just a collection of objects),
◮ →⊆ X × X a binary attack relation on arguments
◮ We write x → y as shorthand for (x, y ) ∈→ (“argument x attacks
argument y ”)
◮ We are not concerned with content of arguments or origin of
“attack” relationship
◮ Question: when is an argument “safe” (i.e. acceptable)?
◮ We discuss one way of modelling this
◮ x is attacked by a set of arguments Y ⊆ X if ∃y ∈ Y .y → x
◮ x is acceptable (“in”) wrt Y ⊆ X if every attacker of x (in X ) is
also attacked by Y
◮ Y ⊆ X is conflict-free if no argument in Y attacks some other
argument in Y
◮ Y is admissible if it is conflict-free and each argument in Y is
acceptable with respect to Y

Informatics UoE Agent-Based Systems 205 Informatics UoE Agent-Based Systems 206

Introduction Introduction
Argumentation Abstract argumentation Argumentation Abstract argumentation
Argumentation dialogue systems Implemented argumentation agents Argumentation dialogue systems Implemented argumentation agents
Summary Summary

Example Example

◮ Abstract argumentation example

c m
◮ Argument h has no attackers “in”
d ◮ Because of this, a is not acceptable “out”
a g
k l ◮ For same reason p is out
j
b ◮ p only attacker of q, thus q is “in”
i
◮ As concerns i and j, at least one of them must be in
e
◮ Both attack n, so n has one undefeated attacker “out”
n p
f
h q

Informatics UoE Agent-Based Systems 207 Informatics UoE Agent-Based Systems 208
 Introduction Introduction
Argumentation Abstract argumentation Argumentation Abstract argumentation
Argumentation dialogue systems Implemented argumentation agents Argumentation dialogue systems Implemented argumentation agents
Summary Summary

Implemented argumentation agents Implemented argumentation agents

◮ Example: PERSUADER system for labour negotiation domain PERSUADER belief structure example (company perspective):
◮ Agents: labour union, company, mediator profits(+)
◮ Purpose: to reach agreement by exchanging proposals and
counter-proposals production cost(−) sales(+)
◮ Agents model each other’s beliefs
quality (+) prices (−)
◮ Example argument: If the company is forced to grant higher wage plant efficiency (+) materials cost(−) labour cost (−)

increases, then it will decrease employment

employee satisfaction (+) employment (−) economic concessions (−)
◮ Argument types (in order of increasing “severity”)
◮ appeal to universal principle, appeal to a theme, appeal to economic concessions (+) uneconomic concessions (+) automation (+) subcontract (+) wages(−) fringes(−)

authority, appeal to “status quo”, appeal to “minor standards”,

wages(+)
appeal to “prevailing practice”, appeal to precedents as
counter-examples, threaten

Informatics UoE Agent-Based Systems 209 Informatics UoE Agent-Based Systems 210

Introduction
Argumentation
Argumentation dialogue systems
Summary

Summary

◮ Argumentation: a richer form of negotiation

◮ Logic-based negotiation: attacks, defeats
◮ Strengths of arguments
◮ Abstract argumentation systems
◮ (Implemented) argumentation dialogue systems
◮ Next time: Cooperative Distributed Problem Solving

Informatics UoE Agent-Based Systems 211