More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/

research-article

Free access

Dialogues that account for different perspectives in collaborative argumentation

Authors:

Elizabeth Black,

Katie AtkinsonAuthors Info & Claims

AAMAS '09: Proceedings of The 8th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems - Volume 2

Pages 867 - 874

Published: 10 May 2009 Publication History

Abstract

It is often the case that agents within a system have distinct types of knowledge. Furthermore, whilst common goals may be agreed upon, the particular representations of the individual agents' views of the world that they operate within may not always match. In this paper we provide a framework to allow different agents with different expertise to make individual contributions to an overall reasoning process, in order to make a decision about how to act to achieve some goal. Our framework is based on a model of argumentation that embeds inquiry dialogues within a process of practical reasoning. We combine two different approaches to argumentative reasoning and show not only how they can function together within a formal framework to provide richer interactions, but also how this facilitates reasoning across distributed agents who may each have different perspectives on the scenarios they operate in.

References

[1]

K. Atkinson and T. J. M. Bench-Capon. Practical reasoning as presumptive argumentation using action based alternating transition systems. Artificial Intelligence, 171(10--15):855--874, 2007.

Digital Library

[2]

K. Atkinson, T. J. M. Bench-Capon, and S. Modgil. Argumentation for decision support. In 17th Int. Conf. on Database and Expert Systems Applications, LNCS 4080, pages 822--831. Springer, 2006.

Digital Library

[3]

T. J. M. Bench-Capon. Persuasion in practical argument using value based argumentation frameworks. J. of Logic and Computation, 13(3):429--48, 2003.

[4]

E. Black and A. Hunter. An inquiry dialogue system. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, DOI 10.1007/s10458-008-9074-5, 2009.

Digital Library

[5]

F. Dignum and G. Vreeswijk. Towards a testbed for multi-party dialogues. In AAMAS Int. Workshop on Agent Communication Languages and Conversation Policies, pages 63--71, 2003.

[6]

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

[7]

A. J. García and G. R. Simari. Defeasible logic programming an argumentative approach. Theory and Practice of Logic Prog., 4(1--2):95--138, 2004.

Digital Library

[8]

P. Krause, S. Ambler, M. Elvang-Goransson, and J. Fox. A logic of argumentation for reasoning under uncertainty. Computational Intelligence, 11(1):113--131, 1995.

[9]

P. McBurney and S. Parsons. Games that agents play: A formal framework for dialogues between autonomous agents. J. of Logic, Language and Information, 11(3):315--334, 2002.

Digital Library

[10]

H. Prakken. A study of accrual of arguments, with applications to evidential reasoning. In 10th Int. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pages 85--94. ACM Press, 2005.

Digital Library

[11]

H. Prakken. Combining sceptical epistemic reasoning with credulous practical reasoning. In Computational Models of Argument, Proc. of COMMA-06, pages 311--322, 2006.

Digital Library

[12]

I. Rahwan and L. Amgoud. An argumentation-based approach for practical reasoning. In 5th Int. Joint Conf. on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, pages 347--354. ACM Press, 2006.

Digital Library

[13]

C. Reed. Dialogue frames in agent communications. In 3rd Int. Conf. on Multi-Agent Systems, pages 246--253, 1998.

Digital Library

[14]

D. N. Walton. Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, USA, 1996.

[15]

M. Wooldridge and W. van der Hoek. On obligations and normative ability: Towards a logical analysis of the social contract. J. of Applied Logic, 3:396--420, 2005.

Cited By

Oliveira TDauphin JSatoh KTsumoto SNovais PAndre EKoenig SDastani MSukthankar G(2018)Argumentation with Goals for Clinical Decision Support in MultimorbidityProceedings of the 17th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems10.5555/3237383.3238061(2031-2033)Online publication date: 9-Jul-2018
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/3237383.3238061
Hunter AThimm M(2016)Optimization of dialectical outcomes in dialogical argumentationInternational Journal of Approximate Reasoning10.1016/j.ijar.2016.06.01478:C(73-102)Online publication date: 1-Nov-2016
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.ijar.2016.06.014
Chopra AArtikis ABentahar JColombetti MDignum FFornara NJones ASingh MYolum P(2013)Research directions in agent communicationACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology10.1145/2438653.24386554:2(1-23)Online publication date: 3-Apr-2013
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2438653.2438655
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Dialogues that account for different perspectives in collaborative argumentation
1. Computing methodologies
  1. Artificial intelligence
    1. Distributed artificial intelligence

Recommendations

Using enthymemes in an inquiry dialogue system
AAMAS '08: Proceedings of the 7th international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems - Volume 1

A common assumption for logic-based argumentation is that an argument is a pair (Φ, α) where Φ is a minimal subset of the knowledgebase such that Φ is consistent and Φ entails the claim α. However, real arguments (i.e. arguments presented by humans) ...
An inquiry dialogue system

The majority of existing work on agent dialogues considers negotiation, persuasion or deliberation dialogues; we focus on inquiry dialogues, which allow agents to collaborate in order to find new knowledge. We present a general framework for ...
Generating Policies for Persuasion Dialogues
AAMAS '18: Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems

Persuasion dialogues are a way of formalising the exchange of arguments between two agents. The proponent attempts to persuade their opponent to accept a specific goal argument. We build on simple strategies \citepblack2017planning, i.e.\ sequences of ...

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image Guide Proceedings

AAMAS '09: Proceedings of The 8th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems - Volume 2

May 2009

730 pages

ISBN:9780981738178

General Chairs:
Carles Sierra
Artificial Intelligence Research Institute of the Spanish Research Council (Spain)
,
Cristiano Castelfranchi
ISTC-CNR (Italy)
,
Program Chairs:
Keith S. Decker
University of Delaware
,
Jaime Simão Sichman
Politecnic School, University of São Paulo (Brazil)

Sponsors

Drexel University
Wiley-Blackwell
Microsoft Research: Microsoft Research
Whitestein Technologies
European Office of Aerospace Research and Development, Air Force Office of Scientific Research, United States Air Force Research Laboratory
The Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents

Publisher

International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems

Richland, SC

Publication History

Published: 10 May 2009

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article

Acceptance Rates

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

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

10
Total Citations
View Citations
228
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)40
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)4

Reflects downloads up to 31 Dec 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Oliveira TDauphin JSatoh KTsumoto SNovais PAndre EKoenig SDastani MSukthankar G(2018)Argumentation with Goals for Clinical Decision Support in MultimorbidityProceedings of the 17th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems10.5555/3237383.3238061(2031-2033)Online publication date: 9-Jul-2018
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/3237383.3238061
Hunter AThimm M(2016)Optimization of dialectical outcomes in dialogical argumentationInternational Journal of Approximate Reasoning10.1016/j.ijar.2016.06.01478:C(73-102)Online publication date: 1-Nov-2016
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.ijar.2016.06.014
Chopra AArtikis ABentahar JColombetti MDignum FFornara NJones ASingh MYolum P(2013)Research directions in agent communicationACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology10.1145/2438653.24386554:2(1-23)Online publication date: 3-Apr-2013
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2438653.2438655
Black EAtkinson KSonenberg LStone PTumer KYolum P(2011)Choosing persuasive arguments for actionThe 10th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems - Volume 310.5555/2034396.2034398(905-912)Online publication date: 2-May-2011
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/2034396.2034398
Kakas AAmgoud LKern-Isberner GMaudet NMoraitis P(2011)ABAProceedings of the 8th international conference on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems10.1007/978-3-642-33152-7_2(9-27)Online publication date: 3-May-2011
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-642-33152-7_2
Riley LAtkinson KPayne TBlack E(2011)An implemented dialogue system for inquiry and persuasionProceedings of the First international conference on Theory and Applications of Formal Argumentation10.1007/978-3-642-29184-5_5(67-84)Online publication date: 16-Jul-2011
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-642-29184-5_5
Hadidi NDimopoulos YMoraitis PLuck MSen S(2010)Argumentative alternating offersProceedings of the 9th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems: volume 1 - Volume 110.5555/1838206.1838268(441-448)Online publication date: 10-May-2010
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/1838206.1838268
Hadidi NDimopoulos YMoraitis P(2010)Argumentative alternating offersProceedings of the 7th international conference on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems10.1007/978-3-642-21940-5_7(105-122)Online publication date: 10-May-2010
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-642-21940-5_7
Kok EMeyer JPrakken HVreeswijk G(2010)A formal argumentation framework for deliberation dialoguesProceedings of the 7th international conference on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems10.1007/978-3-642-21940-5_3(31-48)Online publication date: 10-May-2010
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-642-21940-5_3
Black EAtkinson K(2010)Agreeing what to doProceedings of the 7th international conference on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems10.1007/978-3-642-21940-5_2(12-30)Online publication date: 10-May-2010
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-642-21940-5_2

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

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

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Table of Contents