A dialogue mechanism for public argumentation using conversation policies

ABSTRACT

In this paper, we propose a flexible dialogue mechanism through which a set of agents can establish a coherent set of public beliefs. Flexibility and coherence are achieved by decomposing the dialogue mechanism into two parts, a backbone protocol and a set of conversation policies. The backbone protocol maintains the set of arguments put forward by the agents, and each agent uses a preagreed argumentation theory to extract the set of public beliefs from the context. The flexibility is achieved by distributing the other functions of the dialogue mechanism among a set of conversation policies, some of which are public and some of which are private to each agent.

REFERENCES

• 1: L. Amgoud. A formal framework for handling conflicting desires. In Proceedings of the 7th European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty, 2003.
• 2: Leila Amgoud , Claudette Cayrol, Inferring from Inconsistency in Preference-Based Argumentation Frameworks, Journal of Automated Reasoning, v.29 n.2, p.125-169, 2002 [doi>10.1023/A:1021603608656]
• 3: Leila Amgoud , Claudette Cayrol, A Reasoning Model Based on the Production of Acceptable Arguments, Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, v.34 n.1-3, p.197-215, March 2002 [doi>10.1023/A:1014490210693]
• 4: Modeling Dialogues Using Argumentation, Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on MultiAgent Systems (ICMAS-2000), p.31, July 10-12, 2000
• 5: ASPIC. D1.1 - review on argumentation technology: State of the art, technical and user requirements. Technical report, ASPIC, ASPIC, 2004.
• 6: Katie Atkinson , Trevor Bench-Capon , Peter Mcburney, A Dialogue Game Protocol for Multi-Agent Argument over Proposals for Action, Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, v.11 n.2, p.153-171, September 2005 [doi>10.1007/s10458-005-1166-x]
• 7: Philippe Besnard , Anthony Hunter, A logic-based theory of deductive arguments, Artificial Intelligence, v.128 n.1-2, p.203-235, May 2001 [doi>10.1016/S0004-3702(01)00071-6]
• 8: B. Bonet and H. Geffner. Arguing for decisions: A qualitative model of decision making. In Proceedings of the 12th Annual Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, 1996.
• 9: C. Cayrol and M.-C. Lagasquie-Schiex. Graduality in argumentation. In Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, volume 23, pages 245--297. 2005.
• 10: Carlos Iván Chesñevar , Ana Gabriela Maguitman , Ronald Prescott Loui, Logical models of argument, ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), v.32 n.4, p.337-383, Dec. 2000 [doi>10.1145/371578.371581]
• 11: Phan Minh Dung, On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games, Artificial Intelligence, v.77 n.2, p.321-357, Sept. 1995 [doi>10.1016/0004-3702(94)00041-X]
• 12: Mark Greaves , Heather Holmback , Jeffrey Bradshaw, What Is a Conversation Policy?, Issues in Agent Communication, p.118-131, January 2000
• 13: Joseph Y. Halpern, Reasoning about Uncertainty, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2003
• 14: Peter McBurney , David Hitchcock , Simon Parsons, The eightfold way of deliberation dialogue: Research Articles, International Journal of Intelligent Systems, v.22 n.1, p.95-132, January 2007 [doi>10.1002/int.v22:1]
• 15: H. Jakobovits and D. Vermeir. Robust semantics for argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation, 9(2):215--261, 1999.
• 16: Jürg Kohlas, Probabilistic argumentation systems a new way to combine logic with probability, Journal of Applied Logic, v.1 n.3-4, p.225-253, June 2003 [doi>10.1016/S1570-8683(03)00014-4]
• 17: P. Krause, S. Ambler, M. Elvang-Gøransson, and J. Fox. A logic of argumentation for reasoning under uncertainty. Computational Intelligence, 11:113--131, 1995.
• 18: N. Maudet , B. Chaib-Draa, Commitment-based and dialogue-game-based protocols: new trends in agent communication languages, The Knowledge Engineering Review, v.17 n.2, p.157-179, June 2002 [doi>10.1017/S0269888902000486]
• 19: P. McBurney and S. Parsons. Dialogue game protocols. In M.-P. Huget, editor, Communication in Multiagent Systems, volume 2650 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 269--283. Springer, 2003.
• 20: Peter McBurney , Simon Parsons , Michael Wooldridge, Desiderata for agent argumentation protocols, Proceedings of the first international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems: part 1, July 15-19, 2002, Bologna, Italy [doi>10.1145/544741.544836]
• 21: Dana Nau , Malik Ghallab , Paolo Traverso, Automated Planning: Theory & Practice, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CA, 2004
• 22: John L. Pollock, Defeasible reasoning with variable degrees of justification, Artificial Intelligence, v.133 n.1-2, p.233-282, December 2001 [doi>10.1016/S0004-3702(01)00145-X]
• 23: Henry Prakken, Coherence and Flexibility in Dialogue Games for Argumentation, Journal of Logic and Computation, v.15 n.6, p.1009-1040, December 2005 [doi>10.1093/logcom/exi046]
• 24: I. Rahwan, P. Moraitis, and C. Reed, editors. Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems, volume 3366 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, 2005.
• 25: Iyad Rahwan , Sarvapali D. Ramchurn , Nicholas R. Jennings , Peter Mcburney , Simon Parsons , Liz Sonenberg, Argumentation-based negotiation, The Knowledge Engineering Review, v.18 n.4, p.343-375, December 2003 [doi>DOI:10.1017/S0269888904000098]
• 26: Chris Reed , Doug Walton, Towards a Formal and Implemented Model of Argumentation Schemes in Agent Communication, Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, v.11 n.2, p.173-188, September 2005 [doi>10.1007/s10458-005-1729-x]
• 27: Yuqing Tang , Simon Parsons, Argumentation-based dialogues for deliberation, Proceedings of the fourth international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems, July 25-29, 2005, The Netherlands [doi>10.1145/1082473.1082557]
• 28: B. Verheij. Rules, Reasons, Arguments. Formal studies of argumentation and defeat. PhD thesis, University of Maastricht, 1996.
• 29: G. Vreeswijk. The feasibility of defeat in defeasible reasoning. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on the Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, 1991.
• 30: D. N. Walton and E. C. W. Krabbe. Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. State University of New York Press, Albany, NY, USA, 1995.
• 31: Gerhard Weiss, Multiagent systems: a modern approach to distributed artificial intelligence, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1999

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  I. Computing Methodologies
  I.2 ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
        I.2.11 Distributed Artificial Intelligence
            Subjects: Coherence and coordination

Additional Classification:
  I. Computing Methodologies
  I.2 ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
        I.2.11 Distributed Artificial Intelligence
            Subjects: Multiagent systems
      I.2.8 Problem Solving, Control Methods, and Search
          Subjects: Plan execution, formation, and generation

General Terms:
Algorithms, Design, Management, Theory