Strategic argumentation provides a simple model of disputation and negotiation among agents. Although agents might be expected to act in our best interests, there is little that enforces such behaviour. (Maher, 2016) introduced a model of corruption and resistance to corruption within strategic argumentation. In this paper we identify corrupt behaviours that are not detected in that formulation. We strengthen the model to detect such behaviours, and show that, under the strengthened model, all the strategic aims in (Maher, 2016) are resistant to corruption.

Strategic argumentation provides a simple model of disputation. We investigate it in the context of Dung's abstract argumentation. We show that strategic argumentation under the grounded semantics is resistant tocorruption -- specifically, collusion and espionage — in a sense similar to Bartholdi et al's notion of a voting scheme resistant to manipulation. Under the stable semantics, strategic argumentation is resistant to espionage, but its resistance to collusion varies according to the aims of the disputants. These results are extended to a variety of concrete languages for argumentation.

This paper deals with the issue of strategic argumentation in the setting of Dung-style abstract argumentation theory. Such reasoning takes place through the use of opponent models—recursive representations of an agent’s knowledge and beliefs regarding the opponent’s knowledge. Using such models, we present three approaches to reasoning. The first directly utilises the opponent model to identify the best move to advance in a dialogue. The second extends our basic approach through the use of quantitative uncertainty over the opponent’s model. The final extension introduces virtual arguments into the opponent’s reasoning process. Such arguments are unknown to the agent, but presumed to exist and interact with known arguments. They are therefore used to add a primitive notion of risk to the agent’s reasoning. We have implemented our models and we have performed an empirical analysis that shows that this added expressivity improves the performance of an agent in a dialogue.