On the outcomes of formal inter-agent dialogues

ABSTRACT

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 of such outcomes, the paper also investigates the extent to which outcomes are dependent on tactical play by the agents, and arguing that this violates principles of mechanism design, identifies how to prevent tactics having an effect.

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.
• 2: Modeling Dialogues Using Argumentation, Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on MultiAgent Systems (ICMAS-2000), p.31, July 10-12, 2000
• 3: Leila Amgoud , Simon Parsons, Agent Dialogues with Conflicting Preferences, Revised Papers from the 8th International Workshop on Intelligent Agents VIII, p.190-205, August 01-03, 2001
• 4: B. Chaib-Draa and F. Dignum. Trends in agent communication language. Computational Intelligence, 18(2):89--101, 2002.
• 5: Frank Dignum , Barbara Dunin-Keplicz , Rineke Verbrugge, Agent Theory for Team Formation by Dialogue, Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop on Intelligent Agents VII. Agent Theories Architectures and Languages, p.150-166, July 07-09, 2000
• 6: 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]
• 7: R. A. Flores and R. C. Kremer. To commit or not to commit. Computational Intelligence, 18(2):120--173, 2002.
• 8: Thomas F. Gordon, The Pleadings Game: an exercise in computational dialectics, Artificial Intelligence and Law, v.2 n.4, p.239-292, 1993/1994 [doi>10.1007/BF00871972]
• 9: 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.
• 10: Barbara J. Grosz , Candace L. Sidner, Attention, intentions, and the structure of discourse, Computational Linguistics, v.12 n.3, p.175-204, July-September 1986
• 11: C. L. Hamblin. Fallacies. Methuen and Co Ltd, London, UK, 1970.
• 12: M. O. Jackson. Mechanism theory. In The Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems. EOLSS Publishers, 2000. URL: www.eolss.co.uk.
• 13: Peter McBurney , Simon Parsons, Risk Agoras: Dialectical Argumentation for Scientific Reasoning, Proceedings of the 16th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, p.371-379, June 30-July 03, 2000
• 14: Peter McBurney , Simon Parsons, Games That Agents Play: A Formal Framework for Dialogues between Autonomous Agents, Journal of Logic, Language and Information, v.11 n.3, p.315-334, Summer 2002 [doi>10.1023/A:1015586128739]
• 15: 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.
• 16: 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.
• 17: S. Parsons and P. McBurney. Argumentation-based communication between agents. In M.-P. Huget, editor, Agent Communication Languages. Springer Verlag, Berlin, 2003.
• 18: 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.
• 19: Simon Parsons , Michael Wooldridge , Leila Amgoud, An analysis of formal inter-agent dialogues, Proceedings of the first international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems: part 1, July 15-19, 2002, Bologna, Italy [doi>10.1145/544741.544835]
• 20: S. Parsons, M. Wooldridge, and L. Amgoud. Properties and complexity of formal inter-agent dialogues. Journal of Logic and Computation, (to appear), 2003.
• 21: H. Prakken. Relating protocols for dynamic dispute with logics for defeasible argumentation. Synthese, 127:187--219, 2001.
• 22: C. Reed, Dialogue Frames in Agent Communication, Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Multi Agent Systems, p.246, July 03-07, 1998
• 23: Michael Schroeder , Daniel A. Plewe , Andreas Raab, Ultima ratio (poster): should Hamlet kill Claudius?, Proceedings of the second international conference on Autonomous agents, p.467-468, May 10-13, 1998, Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States [doi>10.1145/280765.280906]
• 24: K. Sycara. Argumentation: Planning other agents' plans. In Proceedings of the Eleventh Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 517--523, 1989.
• 25: 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.

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

General Terms:
Languages, Theory

Keywords:
agent communication, argumentation, dialogue games