Elise Bonzon

Learn More
Game theory is a widely used formal model for studying strategical interactions between agents. Boolean games [8] are two players, zero-sum static games where players’ utility functions are binary and described by a single propositional formula, and the strategies available to a player consist of truth assignments to each of a given set of propositional(More)
Boolean games are a logical setting for representing static games in a succinct way, taking advantage of the expressive power and succinctness of propositional logic. A Boolean game consists of a set of players, each of them controlling a set of propositional variables and having a specific goal expressed by a propositional formula, or more generally a(More)
Boolean games are a logical setting for representing strategic games in a succinct way, taking advantage of the expressive power and conciseness of propositional logic. A Boolean game consists of a set of players, each of which controls a set of propositional variables and has a specific goal expressed by a propositional formula. We show here that Boolean(More)
In recent years, several bilateral protocols regulating the exchange of arguments between agents have been proposed. When dealing with persuasion, the objective is to arbitrate among conflicting viewpoints. Often, these debates are not entirely predetermined from the initial situation, which means that agents have a chance to influence the outcome in a way(More)
Boolean games, introduced by [15, 14], allow for expressing compactly two-players zero-sum static games with binary preferences: an agent’s strategy consists of a truth assignment of the propositional variables she controls, and a player’s preferences is expressed by a plain propositional formula. These restrictions (two-players, zero-sum, binary(More)
Agents contributing to (online) debate systems often have different areas of expertise. This must be considered if we want to define a decision making process based on the output of such a system. Distinguishing agents on the basis of their areas of expertise also opens an interesting perspective: when a debate is deemed “controversial”, calling an(More)
Argumentation-based negotiation has emerged as an important topic in multi-agent systems over the last years. Although there are many studies of frameworks that enable agents to negotiate through the exchange of arguments, there is a lack of reasoning methods that employ the (usually incomplete) knowledge an agent may have about his opponent. This work(More)
Argumentation is a process of evaluating and comparing a set of arguments. A way to compare them consists in using a ranking-based semantics which rank-order arguments from the most to the least acceptable ones. Recently, a number of such semantics have been proposed independently, often associated with some desirable properties. However, there is no(More)
Debating agents have often different areas of expertise and conflicting opinions on the subjects under discussion. They are faced with the problem of deciding how to contribute to the current state of the debate in order to satisfy their personal goals. We focus on target sets, that specify minimal changes on the current state of the debate allowing agents(More)