Article

An analysis of formal inter-agent dialogues

Authors:

Michael Wooldridge,

Leila AmgoudAuthors Info & Claims

AAMAS '02: Proceedings of the first international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems: part 1

Pages 394 - 401

https://doi.org/10.1145/544741.544835

Published: 15 July 2002 Publication History

Abstract

This paper studies argumentation-based dialogues between agents. It defines a set of locutions by which agents can trade arguments, a set of agent attitudes which relate what arguments an agent can build and what locutions it can make, and a set of protocols by which dialogues can be carried out. The paper then considers some properties of dialogues under the protocols, in particular termination and complexity, and shows how these relate to the agent attitudes.

References

[1]

L. Amgoud and C. Cayrol. On the acceptability of arguments in preference-based argumentation framework. In Proceedings of the 14th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, pages 1--7, 1998.]]

Digital Library

[2]

L. Amgoud, N. Maudet, and S. Parsons. Modelling dialogues using argumentation. In E. Durfee, editor, Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems, pages 31--38, Boston, MA, USA, 2000. IEEE Press.]]

Digital Library

[3]

L. Amgoud and S. Parsons. Agent dialogues with conflicting preferences. In J.-J. Meyer and M. Tambe, editors, Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Agent Theories, Architectures and Languages, pages 1--15, 2001.]]

Digital Library

[4]

F. Dignum, B. Dunin-Kȩplicz, and R. Verbrugge. Agent theory for team formation by dialogue. In C. Castelfranchi and Y. Lespérance, editors, Seventh Workshop on Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages, pages 141--156, Boston, USA, 2000.]]

Digital Library

[5]

P. M. Dung. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence, 77:321--357, 1995.]]

Digital Library

[6]

T. F. Gordon. The pleadings game. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 2:239--292, 1993.]]

Digital Library

[7]

B. J. Grosz and S. Kraus. The evolution of sharedplans. In M. J. Wooldridge and A. Rao, editors, Foundations of Rational Agency, volume 14 of Applied Logic. Kluwer, The Netherlands, 1999.]]

[8]

B. J. Grosz and C. L. Sidner. Attention, intentions, and the structure of discourse. Computational Linguistics, 12(3):175--204, 1986.]]

Digital Library

[9]

D. S. Johnson. A catalog of complexity classes. In J. van Leeuwen, editor, Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science Volume A: Algorithms and Complexity, pages 67--161. Elsevier, 1990.]]

Digital Library

[10]

N. Maudet and F. Evrard. A generic framework for dialogue game implementation. In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Formal Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue, University of Twente, The Netherlands, May 1998.]]

[11]

P. McBurney and S. Parsons. Risk agoras: Dialectical argumentation for scientific reasoning. In C. Boutilier and M. Goldszmidt, editors, Proceedings of the 16th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, Stanford, CA, USA, 2000. UAI.]]

Digital Library

[12]

P. McBurney and S. Parsons. Games that agents play: A formal framework for dialogues between autonomous agents. Journal of Logic, Language, and Information, (to appear).]]

Digital Library

[13]

S. Parsons and P. Giorgini. An approach to using degrees of belief in BDI agents. In B. Bouchon-Meunier, R. R. Yager, and L. A. Zadeh, editors, Information, Uncertainty, Fusion. Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1999.]]

[14]

S. Parsons and N. R. Jennings. Negotiation through argumentation -- a preliminary report. In Proceedings of Second International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems, pages 267--274, 1996.]]

[15]

S. Parsons, C. Sierra, and N. R. Jennings. Agents that reason and negotiate by arguing. Journal of Logic and Computation, 8(3):261--292, 1998.]]

[16]

H. Prakken. Relating protocols for dynamic dispute with logics for defeasible argumentation. Synthese, 127:187--219, 2001.]]

[17]

C. Reed. Dialogue frames in agent communications. In Y. Demazeau, editor, Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems, pages 246--253. IEEE Press, 1998.]]

Digital Library

[18]

M. Schroeder, D. A. Plewe, and A. Raab. Ultima ratio: should Hamlet kill Claudius. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Autonomous Agents, pages 467--468, 1998.]]

Digital Library

[19]

K. Sycara. Argumentation: Planning other agents' plans. In Proceedings of the Eleventh Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 517--523, 1989.]]

Digital Library

[20]

D. N. Walton and E. C. W. Krabbe. Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. State University of New York Press, Albany, NY, 1995.]]

[21]

M. Wooldridge and S. Parsons. Languages for negotiation. In W. Horn, editor, Proceedings of the Fourteenth European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 393--397, Berlin, Germany, 2000. IOS Press.]]

Cited By

Odekerken DLehtonen TBorg AWallner JJärvisalo MMarquis PSon TKern-Isberner G(2023)Argumentative reasoning in ASPIC+ under incomplete informationProceedings of the 20th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning10.24963/kr.2023/52(531-541)Online publication date: 2-Sep-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.24963/kr.2023/52
Panisson AMcBurney PBordini RPelachaud CTaylor MFaliszewski PMascardi V(2022)Towards an Enthymeme-Based Communication FrameworkProceedings of the 21st International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems10.5555/3535850.3536084(1708-1710)Online publication date: 9-May-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/3535850.3536084
Panisson AMcBurney PBordini R(2021)A computational model of argumentation schemes for multi-agent systemsArgument & Computation10.3233/AAC-21055512:3(357-395)Online publication date: 10-Nov-2021
https://doi.org/10.3233/AAC-210555
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

An analysis of formal inter-agent dialogues
1. Computing methodologies
  1. Artificial intelligence
    1. Distributed artificial intelligence
      1. Cooperation and coordination
      2. Multi-agent systems

Recommendations

On the outcomes of formal inter-agent dialogues
AAMAS '03: Proceedings of the second international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems

This paper studies argumentation-based dialogues between agents. It takes a previously defined system by which agents can trade arguments and examines the outcomes of the dialogues this system permits. In addition to providing a first characterisation ...
Argumentation-based dialogues for deliberation
AAMAS '05: Proceedings of the fourth international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems

This paper presents an argumentation-based approach to deliberation, the process by which two or more agents reach a consensus on a course of action. The kind of deliberation we are interested in combines both the selection of an overall goal, the ...
A formal framework for inter-agent dialogues
AGENTS '01: Proceedings of the fifth international conference on Autonomous agents

We present a logic-based formalism for modeling of dialogues between intelligent and autonomous software agents, building on a theory of abstract dialogue games which we present. The formalism enables representation of complex dialogues as sequences of ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences

AAMAS '02: Proceedings of the first international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems: part 1

July 2002

540 pages

ISBN:1581134800

DOI:10.1145/544741

Conference Chairs:
Maria Gini
University of Minnesota, USA
,
Toru Ishida
Kyoto University, Japan
,
Program Chairs:
Cristiano Castelfranchi
CNR and Università di Siena, Italy
,
W. Lewis Johnson
University of Southern California, USA

Copyright © 2002 ACM.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part 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, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Sponsors

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 15 July 2002

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Article

Conference

AAMAS02

Sponsor:

AAMAS02: The First International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems ( formerly known as Autonomous Agents )

July 15 - 19, 2002

Bologna, Italy

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 1,155 of 5,036 submissions, 23%

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

56
Total Citations
View Citations
385
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)6
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

Reflects downloads up to 30 Aug 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Odekerken DLehtonen TBorg AWallner JJärvisalo MMarquis PSon TKern-Isberner G(2023)Argumentative reasoning in ASPIC+ under incomplete informationProceedings of the 20th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning10.24963/kr.2023/52(531-541)Online publication date: 2-Sep-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.24963/kr.2023/52
Panisson AMcBurney PBordini RPelachaud CTaylor MFaliszewski PMascardi V(2022)Towards an Enthymeme-Based Communication FrameworkProceedings of the 21st International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems10.5555/3535850.3536084(1708-1710)Online publication date: 9-May-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/3535850.3536084
Panisson AMcBurney PBordini R(2021)A computational model of argumentation schemes for multi-agent systemsArgument & Computation10.3233/AAC-21055512:3(357-395)Online publication date: 10-Nov-2021
https://doi.org/10.3233/AAC-210555
Katsumi HYoshino KHiraoka TAkimoto KYamamoto KMotoura SSadamasa KNakamura S(2020)Optimization of Information-Seeking Dialogue Strategy for Argumentation-Based Dialogue System論証対話システムにおける情報探索対話戦略の最適化Transactions of the Japanese Society for Artificial Intelligence10.1527/tjsai.DSI-D35:1(DSI-D_1-12)Online publication date: 1-Jan-2020
https://doi.org/10.1527/tjsai.DSI-D
Araszkiewicz MAmantea IChakravarty Svan Doesburg RDymitruk MGarin MGilpin LOdekerken DSalehi S(2020)ICAIL Doctoral Consortium, Montreal 2019Artificial Intelligence and Law10.1007/s10506-020-09267-zOnline publication date: 26-May-2020
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-020-09267-z
Galitsky BGalitsky B(2020)Managing Customer Relations in an Explainable WayArtificial Intelligence for Customer Relationship Management10.1007/978-3-030-52167-7_8(309-377)Online publication date: 8-Dec-2020
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52167-7_8
Agis RGottifredi SGarcía A(2019)Acquiring knowledge from expert agents in a structured argumentation settingArgument & Computation10.3233/AAC-19044710:2(149-189)Online publication date: 2-Sep-2019
https://doi.org/10.3233/AAC-190447
Hiraoka TMotoura SSadamasa K(2019)Detecticon: A Prototype Inquiry Dialog System9th International Workshop on Spoken Dialogue System Technology10.1007/978-981-13-9443-0_33(381-387)Online publication date: 25-Sep-2019
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-9443-0_33
Haimson CPaul CJoseph SRohrer RNebesh B(2019)Do We Need “Teaming” to Team with a Machine?Augmented Cognition10.1007/978-3-030-22419-6_13(169-178)Online publication date: 20-Jun-2019
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22419-6_13
Moubaiddin ASalah IObeid N(2018)A temporal modal defeasible logic for formalizing social commitments in dialogue and argumentation modelsApplied Intelligence10.1007/s10489-017-0983-348:3(608-627)Online publication date: 1-Mar-2018
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10489-017-0983-3
Show More Cited By

View Options

Get Access

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Table of Contents