Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Introduction
Problem and Research Objectives
Resulting Dialogue
Summing Up the Resulting Behavior
Related Work and Prospects
Conclusion
References
All Topics
Computer Science
Artificial Intelligence

Agent communication pragmatics: the cognitive coherence approach

Profile image of Philippe PasquierPhilippe Pasquier

2005, Cognitive Systems Research

https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COGSYS.2005.03.002
visibility

…

description

32 pages

link

1 file

Abstract

Different approaches have investigated the syntax and semantics of agent communication languages. However, these approaches have not indicated how agents should dynamically use communications. Instead of filling this pragmatics gap, most approaches have mainly focused on the ÔstructureÕ of dialogues even though developers are more interested in agentsÕ capabilities of having ÔusefulÕ automated conversations with respect to their goals rather than in their abilities to structure dialogues. This led us to work on a theory of the use of conversations between agents. In this paper, we propose a pragmatics theory which extends and adapts the cognitive dissonance theory (a major theory of social psychology) to multi-agent systems by unifying it with the theory of coherence in thought and action that issues from computational philosophy of mind. Precisely, we show how this theory allows us to provide generic conceptual tools for the automation of both agent communicational behavior and attitude change processes. This new motivational model is formulated in terms of constraints and elements of cognition and allows us to define cognitive incoherences and dialogue utility measures. We show how these measures could be used to solve common problems and answer some critical questions concerning agent communication frameworks use. Finally, our exploration in applying the cognitive coherence pragmatics theory as a new communication layer over classical BDI agents is presented. It relies on our dialogue games based agent communication language (DIAGAL) and our dialogue games simulator toolbox (DGS). The resulting framework provides the necessary theoretical and practical elements for implementing our theory. In doing so, it brings in a general scheme for automatizing agentsÕ communicational behavior as it is exemplified in this article.

Related papers

Formulating agent communication semantics and pragmatics as behavioral expectations
Michael Rovatsos

2005

Although several approaches to the semantics of agent communication have been proposed, none of them is really suitable for dealing with agent autonomy, which is a decisive property of artificial agents. This paper introduces an observation-based approach to the semantics of agent communication, which combines benefits of the two most influential traditional approaches to agent communication semantics, namely the mentalistic (agent-centric) and the objectivist (ie, commitment-or protocol-oriented) approach.

View PDFchevron_right
An Evaluation of a Linguistically Motivated Conversational Software Agent Framework
Dr Kulvinder Panesar

Journal of Computer-Assisted Linguistic Research, 2019

This paper presents a critical evaluation framework for a linguistically motivated conversational software agent (CSA). The CSA prototype investigates the integration, intersection and interface of the language, knowledge, and speech act constructions (SAC) based on a grammatical object, and the sub-model of belief, desires and intention (BDI) and dialogue management (DM) for natural language processing (NLP). A long-standing issue within NLP CSA systems is refining the accuracy of interpretation to provide realistic dialogue to support human-to-computer communication. This prototype constitutes three phase models: (1) a linguistic model based on a functional linguistic theory-Role and Reference Grammar (RRG), (2) an Agent Cognitive Model with two inner models: (a) a knowledge representation model, (b) a planning model underpinned by BDI concepts, intentionality and rational interaction, and (3) a dialogue model. The evaluation strategy for this Java-based prototype is multi-approach driven by grammatical testing (English language utterances), software engineering and agent practice. A set of evaluation criteria are grouped per phase model, and the testing framework aims to test the interface, intersection and integration of all phase models. The empirical evaluations demonstrate that the CSA is a proof-of-concept, demonstrating RRG's fitness for purpose for describing, and explaining phenomena, language processing and knowledge, and computational adequacy. Contrastingly, evaluations identify the complexity of lower level computational mappings of NL-agent to ontology with semantic gaps, and further addressed by a lexical bridging solution.

View PDFchevron_right
A synthesis between mental attitudes and social commitments in agent communication languages
Joris Hulstijn

2005

There are two main traditions in defining a semantics for agent communication languages, based either on mental attitudes or on social commitments. In this paper we show how the role metaphor can be used to bridge the gap between these two approaches. First, we show how dialogues can be modelled as games -a form of normative systems -and how mental attitudes can be attributed not only to agents, but also, in a public manner, to the roles of the game. The dialogue moves allow an agent playing a role to modify the roles' mental states, as specified by the counts-as conditionals (also known as constitutive norms) defining the game. The player of a role is expected to act as if it has the mental attitudes attributed to its role during the dialogue and to prevent its role's mental attitudes from becoming incoherent, as it does for its own private mental attitudes. Secondly, we show how roles as descriptions of expected behavior maintain the normative character of social semantics. Due to the bridge between the two approaches, results and tools from one approach can be used in the other one.

View PDFchevron_right
An argumentation-based Semantics for Agent Communication Languages
Nicolas Maudet

2002

In recent years, the importance of defining a standard framework for agent communication language (ACL) has been widely recognized. However, classical proposals (mentalistic semantics and social semantics) fail to meet the objectives of verifiability and flexibility required in complex interactions involving heterogenous agents possibly designed by different programmers. In this paper we propose an ACL which allows heterogenous agents to engage flexibly in the different kinds of dialogues identified by Walton and Krabbe in . To this end, we propose a two-layered semantics which includes a commitment level and a reasoning level based on argumentation.

View PDFchevron_right
A Computational Semantics for Communicating Rational Agents Based on Mental Models
Birna van Riemsdijk

2009

Communication is key in a multi-agent system for agents to exchange information and coordinate their activities. In the area of agent programming, the challenge is to introduce communication primitives that are useful to a programmer of agent programs as well as semantically well-defined. Moreover, for agents that derive their choice of action from their beliefs and goals it is natural to introduce primitives that support communication related to both of these attitudes. We introduce a communication approach for multi-agent systems based on mood operators instead of the usual speech act labels and a semantics based on the idea that a message can be used to (re)construct a mental model of the sender. An operational semantics is provided that specifies the precise meaning of the primitives. Finally, to facilitate coordination in multi-agent systems, we introduce the concept of a conversation to synchronize actions and communication among agents. Conversations provide a limited resource at the multi-agent level, and provide a natural approach for multi-agent systems to coordinate agent activities.

View PDFchevron_right
Engineering AgentSpeak(L): a formal computational model
Mark d'Inverno

Journal of Logic and Computation, 1998

Perhaps the most successful agent architectures, and certainly the best known, are those based on the Belief-Desire-Intention (BDI) framework. Despite the wealth of research that has accumulated on both formal and practical aspects of this framework, however, there remains a gap between the formal models and the implemented systems. In this paper, we build on earlier work by R a o aimed at narrowing this gap, by d e v eloping a strongly-typed, formal, yet computational model of the BDI-based AgentSpeak(L) language. AgentSpeak(L) is a programming language, based on the Procedural Reasoning System (PRS) and the Distributed Multi-Agent Reasoning System (dMARS), which determines the behaviour of the agents it implements. In developing the model, we add to Rao's work, identify some omissions, and progress beyond the description of a particular language by giving a formal speci cation of a general BDI architecture that can be used as the basis for providing further formal speci cations of more sophisticated systems.

View PDFchevron_right
A Common Ontology of Agent Communication Languages: Modeling Mental Attitudes and Social Commitments
Joris Hulstijn

There are two main traditions in defining a semantics for agent communication languages, based either on mental attitudes or on social commitments. These traditions, even if they share the idea of speech acts as operators with preconditions and effects, and agents playing roles like speaker and hearer, rely on completely distinct ontologies. Not only does the mental attitudes approach refer to concepts like belief, desire, goal or intention and is the social commitment approach based on the notion of commitment, but the two approaches also refer to distinct speech acts, distinct types of dialogue games, and so on. In this paper, we propose a common ontology for both approaches based on public mental attitudes attributed to roles. Public mental attitudes avoid the problems of mentalistic semantics, such as the unverifiability of private mental states, and they allow the reuse of the logics and implementations developed for FIPA compliant approaches. Moreover, a common ontology of communication primitives allows for the construction of agents participating to dialogues with both FIPA and social commitments compliant agents. The challenge of agent communication languages whose semantics is based on public mental attitudes, such as our rolebased semantics, is to define mappings from existing languages to the new one. In this paper we show how to map the two existing traditions to our role-based ontology of public mental attitudes and we show how it allows for a comparison. Moreover, to test the generality of our new ontology for agent communication languages, we show how to extend the social commitment approach to cope with persuasion dialogue too.

View PDFchevron_right
Agent ludens: games for agent dialogues
Simon Parsons

2001

Abstract By treating dialogues as abstract games, we are able to develop a logic-based formalism for modeling of dialogues between intelligent and autonomous software agents. Complex dialogues, including dialogues embedded in one another, can be represented in the formalism as sequences of moves in a combination of dialogue games. We show that our formalism can represent the different types of dialogue in a standard typology, and we also provide these dialogue-types with a game-theoretic semantics.

View PDFchevron_right
A Framework for Agent Communication based on Goals and Argumentation
Jamal Bentahar

2008

This paper proposes a formal framework for agent communication where agents can reason about their goals using strategic reasoning. This reasoning is argumentation-based and enables agents to generate a set of strategic goals depending on a set of constraints. Sub-goals are generated using this reasoning and they can be cancelled or substituted for alternatives during the dialogue progress. An original characteristic of this framework is that agents can use this strategic reasoning together with a tactic reasoning to persist in the achievement of their goals by considering alternatives depending on a set of constraints. Tactic reasoning is responsible of selecting the communicative acts to perform in order to realize the strategic goals. Some constraints are fixed when the conversation starts and others during the dialogue progress. The paper also discusses the computational complexity of such a reasoning.

View PDFchevron_right
A Modal Semantics for an Argumentation-Based Pragmatics for Agent Communication
B. Moulin

Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2005

In this paper we present a modal semantics for our approach based on social commitments and arguments for conversational agents. Our formal framework based on this approach uses three basic elements: social commitments, actions that agents apply to these social commitments and arguments that agents use to support their actions. This framework, called Commitment and Argument Network (CAN), formalizes the agents' interactions as a network in which agents manipulate commitments and arguments. More precisely, we propose a logical model (called DCTL* CAN) based on CTL* and on dynamic logic for this framework. The advantage of this logical model is to bring together social commitments, actions, argumentation relations, and the relations existing between these three elements within the same framework. Our semantics makes it possible to represent the dynamics of agent communication. It also allows us to establish the important link between social commitments as a deontic concept and arguments. The final objective of this paper is to propose a unified framework for pragmatics and semantics of agent communication by defining logic-based protocols.

View PDFchevron_right

References (70)

  1. Adam, C. (2003). Structure et simulation du dialogue. MasterÕs thesis, IRIT, Institut de Recherche en Informatique de Toulouse.
  2. Allen, J. (1995). Natural language understanding: Chapter 17: Defining a conversational agent (pp. 540-576). Menlo Park, CA: The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Compa- gny, Inc..
  3. Baker, M. (1991). Knowledge acquisition in physics and learning environments. Chapter: An analysis of cooperation and conflict in studentÕs collabortive explanations for phenomena in mechanics. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.
  4. Bates, J. (1994). The role of emotion in believable agents. Communications of the ACM, 37(7), 122-125.
  5. Bratman, M. E. (1990). What is intention? In P. R. Cohen, J. L. Morgan, & M. E. Pollack (Eds.), Intentions in communica- tion (pp. 15-32). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  6. Brehm, J., & Cohen, A. (1962). Explorations in cognitive dissonance. New York: Wiley.
  7. Chaib-draa, B., Maudet, N., & Labrie, M. A. (2003). Diagal, a tool for analysing and modelling commitment-based dia- logues between agents. In Proceedings of Canadian AI 2003. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence (Vol. 2671, pp. 353- 369).
  8. Chaib-draa, B., & Vongkasem, L. (2000). ACL as a joint project between participants: A preliminary report. In F. Dignum & M. Greaves (Eds.), Issues in agent communica- tion. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence (Vol. 1916, pp. 235-248). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.
  9. Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  10. Cohen, P. R. (1996). Survey of the state of art in natural language technology. Chapter: Discourse and dialogue (pp. 234-241). Universitat des Saarlandes.
  11. Cohen, P. R., & Levesque, H. J. (1990a). Intentions in communication. Chapter: Persistence, intention and commit- ment. Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
  12. Cohen, P. R., & Levesque, H. J. (1990b). Rational interaction as the basis for communication. In P. R. Cohen, J. Morgan, & M. E. Pollack (Eds.), Intentions in communication (pp. 221-256). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  13. Cohen, P. R., & Levesque, H. J. (1991). Teamwork. Technote 504. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
  14. Cohen, P. R., & Perrault, C. R. (1979). Elements of a plan based theory of speech acts. Cognitive Science, 3, 177-212.
  15. Colombetti, M. (2000). Commitment-based semantic for agent communication languages. In 1st Workshop on the history and philosophy of logic, mathematics and computation.
  16. Craig, R. (1983). Conversational coherence: Form, structure and strategy. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
  17. Dastani, M., Hulstijn, J., & der Torre, L. V. (2000). Negotiation protocols and dialogue games. In Proceedings of the Belgium/Dutch Artificial Intelligence Conference, BNAIC 2000.
  18. Dehais, F., & Pasquier, P. (2000). Approche Ge ´ne ´rique du Conflit. In D. L. Scapin & E. Vergisson (Eds.), ErgoIHM 2000. France, ESTIA: Biarritz.
  19. Dessalles, J.-L. (1998). Formal semantics and pragmatics of dialogue. Chapter: The interplay of desire and necessity in dialogue. (Vol. TWLT-13, pp. 89-97). Enschede: University of Twente.
  20. Dignum, F., & Greaves, M. (2000). Issues in agent communi- cation: An introduction. In F. Dignum & M. Greaves (Eds.), Issues in agent communication. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence (Vol. 1916, pp. 1-16). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.
  21. Erwin, P. (2001). Attitudes and persuasion. Psychology Press.
  22. Excelente-Toledo, C. B., Bourne, R. A., & Jennings, N. R. (2001). Reasoning about commitments and penalties for coordination between autonomous agents. In J. P. Mu ¨ller, E. Andre, S. Sen, & C. Frasson (Eds.), Proceedings of the fifth international conference on autonomous agents (pp. 131-138). Montreal, Canada: ACM Press.
  23. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. CA: Stanford University Press.
  24. Finin, T., & Fritzson, R. (1994). Specification of the KQML agent communication language plus example agent policies and architectures. Technical Report, DARPA Knowledge Sharing Initiative External Interface Working Group.
  25. Finin, T., & Labrou, Y. (1998). Semantics for an ACL. Agents, architecture and languages. Heidelberg, Germany, Berlin: Springer.
  26. Flores, R., & Kremer, R. (2001). Bringing coherence to agent conversation. In M. Wooldridge, P. Ciancarini, & G. Weiss (Eds.), Agent-oriented software engineering II. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 2222, pp. 50-67). Berlin: Springer.
  27. Flores, R., & Kremer, R. C. (2002). A formal theory for agent conversations for actions. Computational Intelligence, 18(2).
  28. FIPA [Fondation for Intelligent Physical Agents] (2002). FIPA ACL message structure specification. Available from http:// www.FIPA.org.
  29. Grice, H. P. (1957). Meaning. Philosophical Review, 66, 377-388.
  30. Grosz, B. J., & Sidner, C. L. (1986). Attention, intentions and the structure of discourse. Computational Linguistics, 12, 175-204.
  31. Grosz, B. J., & Kraus, S. (1996). Collaborative plans for complex group action. Artificial Intelligence, 86, 269-357.
  32. Hamblin, C. (1970). Fallacies. London, UK: Methuen.
  33. Harmon-Jones, E., & Mills, J. (Eds.). (1999). Cognitive disso- nance: Progress on a pivotal theory in social psychology. American Psychological Association.
  34. Howden, N., Ro ¨nnquist, R., Hodgson, A., & Lucas, A. (2001). Jack intelligent agents: Summary of an agent infrastructure. In 5th International conference on autonomous agents.
  35. Keefe, J. (1991). Cognitive dissonance. Chapter: Persuasion: Theory and research (pp. 61-78). Newbury Park,CA: Sage.
  36. Littlejohn, S. (1992). Theories of human communication. Walds- worth Publishing Company.
  37. Maudet, N. (2001). Mode ´liser les conventions des interactions langagie `res: la contribution des jeux de dialogue. PhD thesis, Universite ´Paul Sabatier, Toulouse, France.
  38. Maudet, N. (2003). Negociating dialogue games. Journal of Autonoumous Agents and Multi-agent Systems, 7(2), 229-233.
  39. Maudet, N., & Chaib-draa, B. (2002). Commitment-based and dialogue-game based protocols -new trends in agent com- munication language. Knowledge Engineering, 17(2), 157-179.
  40. McBurney, P., Parsons, S., & Wooldridge, M. (2002). Desiderata for agent argumentation protocols. In Proceedings of the first international conference on autonomous agents and multi- agents, AAMASÕ01 (pp. 402-409). Bologna, Italy: ACM Press.
  41. Moulin, B. (1997). Agent and multi-agent systems. Chapter: The social dimension of interactions in multi-agent systems. Lecture notes in artificial intelligence (LNAI) (Vol. 1441, pp. 169-222). Berlin: Springer.
  42. Pasquier, P. (2002). La cohe ´rence cognitive comme fondement pour la pragmatique des communications agents. PhD proposal, Computer Science and Software Engineering Department, Laval University. Available from http:// www.damas.ift.ulaval.ca/~pasquier/publications.html.
  43. Pasquier, P., & Chaib-draa, B. (2002). Cohe ´rence et conversa- tions entre agents: vers un mode `le base ´sur la consonance cognitive. In J. P. Mu ¨ller & P. Mathieu (Eds.), Syste `mes multi-agents et syste `mes complexes, actes des JFIADSMAÕ02 (pp. 188-203). Paris: Hermes Science Publication.
  44. Pasquier, P., & Chaib-draa, B. (2003a). The cognitive coherence approach for agent communication pragmatics. In Proceed- ings of the second international joint conference on autono- mous agents and multiagents systems, AAMASÕ03 (pp. 544-552). ACM Press.
  45. Pasquier, P., & Chaib-draa, B. (2003b). Engagements, inten- tions et jeux de dialogue. In Actes des Secondes Journe ´es Francophones des Mode `les Formels de lÕInteraction MFIÕ03, Ce ´padue `s (pp. 289-294).
  46. Pasquier, P., & Chaib-draa, B. (2005). Mode `les de dialogue entre agent: un e ´tat de lÕart. In Cognito: Cahiers Romans de Sciences Cognitive (to appear).
  47. Pasquier, P., Bergeron, M., & Chaib-draa, B. (2004a). DIA- GAL: A Generic ACL for Open Systems. In M.-P. Gleizes, A. Omicini, & F. Zambonelli (Eds.), Proceedings of the fifth international workshop engineering societies in the agents world (ESAW). Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence (LNAI) (Vol. 3451, pp. 139-152). Berlin: Springer.
  48. Pasquier, P., Flores, R., & Chaib-draa, B. (2004b). Modelling flexible social commitments and their enforcement. In M.- P. Gleizes, A. Omicini, & F. Zambonelli (Eds.), Proceed- ings of the fifth international workshop engineering societies in the agents world (ESAW). Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence (LNAI) (Vol. 3451, pp. 153-165). Berlin: Springer.
  49. Rao, A. S., & Georgeff, M. P. (1992). An abstract architecture for rational agents. In C. Rich, W. Swartout, & B. Nebel (Eds.), Proceedings of knowledge representation and reason- ing (KR&R-92) (pp. 439-449).
  50. Rao, A. S., & Georgeff, M. (1995). BDI agents: from theory to practice. In Proceedings of the first international conference on multi-agent systems (ICMAS-95), San Francisco, CA (pp. 312-319).
  51. Reed, C. (1998). Dialogue frames in agent communication. In Proceedings of the third international conference on multi- agent systems (ICMAS).
  52. Reed, C., & Long, D. (1997). Collaboration, cooperation and dialogue classification. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference in Artificial Intelligence, IJCAIÕ97, Nagoya, Japan. Morgan Kaufmann.
  53. Sansonnet, J., & Valencia, E. (2003a). Dialogue between non- task oriented agents. In The 4th workshop on agent based simulation, ABS 04, Montpelier, France. Available from http://www.limsi.fr/Individu/jps/research/buzz/buzz.htm.
  54. Sansonnet, J., & Valencia, E. (2003b). Agents informationnels pour lÕe ´tude expe ´rimentale de concepts de socio-cognition: vers une approche agent de la socio informatique. In Journe ´es francophones des syste `mes multiagents, JFSMAÕ03, Hamamet, Tunisia.
  55. Schwartz, P. (2001). Truth maintenance with cognitive disso- nance. Technical Report, University of Maryland at College Park.
  56. Searle, J. R., & Vanderveken, D. (1985). Foundations of illocutionary logic. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  57. Searle, J. R. (1990). Collective intentions and actions. In P. R. Cohen, J. Morgan, & M. E. Pollack (Eds.), Intentions in communication (pp. 401-416). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  58. Singh, M. P. (1991). Social and psychological commitments in multiagent systems. In AAAI fall symposium on knowledge and action at social and organizational levels, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence (LNAI) (Vol. 1916, pp. 104-106).
  59. Singh, M. P. (1998). Agent communication languages: rethink- ing the principles. IEEE Computer, 12(31), 40-47.
  60. Singh, M. (2000). A social semantics for agent communication languages. In F. Dignum & M. Greaves (Eds.), Issues in agent communication (pp. 31-45). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.
  61. Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  62. Sun, R. (1997). Connectionist-Symbolic integration. Chapter: An introduction to hybrid connectionist-symbolic models. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  63. Thagard, P., & Verbeurgt, K. (1998). Coherence as constraint satisfaction. Cognitive Science, 22, 1-24.
  64. Thagard, P. (2000). Coherence in thought and action. Cam- bridge, MA: MIT Press.
  65. Traum, D. R. (1994). A computational theory of grounding in natural language conversation. PhD thesis, Department of Computer Sciences, University of Rochester.
  66. Tuomela, R., & Miller, K. (1988). We-intentions. Philosophical Studies, 53, 367-389.
  67. von Wright, G. (1980). Freedom and determination. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
  68. Walton, D., & Krabbe, E. (1995). Commitment in dialogue. State University of New York Press.
  69. Wickland, R., & Brehm, J. (1976). Perspectives on cognitive dissonance. New York: Halsted Press.
  70. Wooldridge, M. (2001). An introduction to multiagent systems. New York: Wiley.

Related papers

Agent communication pragmatics : the cognitive coherence approach Action editor : Vasant Honavar
Philippe Pasquier

2005

Different approaches have investigated the syntax and semantics of agent communication languages. However, these approaches have not indicated how agents should dynamically use communications. Instead of filling this pragmatics gap, most approaches have mainly focused on the structure of dialogues even though developers are more interested in agents capabilities of having useful automated conversations with respect to their goals rather than in their abilities to structure dialogues. This led us to work on a theory of the use of conversations between agents. In this paper, we propose a pragmatics theory which extends and adapts the cognitive dissonance theory (a major theory of social psychology) to multi-agent systems by unifying it with the theory of coherence in thought and action that issues from computational philosophy of mind. Precisely, we show how this theory allows us to provide generic conceptual tools for the automation of both agent communicational behavior and attitude...

View PDFchevron_right
The cognitive coherence approach for agent communication pragmatics
Brahim Chaib-draa, Philippe Pasquier

2003

Abstract Different approaches have investigated the syntax and semantic of agent communication. However, all these approaches (including: agent communication languages, conversation policies and dialogue games) have not indicated how agents should dynamically use communications.

View PDFchevron_right
A Pragmatic and Semantic Unified Framework for Agent Communication
Jamal Bentahar

2005

In this thesis, we propose a unified framework for the pragmatics and the semantics of agent communication. Pragmatics deals with the way agents use communicative acts when conversing. It is related to the dynamics of agent interactions and to the way of connecting individual acts while building complete conversations. Semantics is interested in the meaning of these acts. It lays down the foundation for a concise and unambiguous meaning of agent messages. This framework aims at solving three main problems of agent communication: 1-The absence of a link between the pragmatics and the semantics. 2-The inflexibility of current agent communication protocols. 3-The verification of agent communication mechanisms. The main contributions of this thesis are: 1-A formal pragmatic approach based on social commitments and arguments. 2-A new agent communication formalism called Commitment and Argument Network. 3-A logical model defining the semantics of the elements used in the pragmatic approach. 4-A tableau-based model checking technique for the verification of a kind of flexible protocols called dialogue game protocols. 5-A new persuasion dialogue game protocol. The main idea of our pragmatic approach is that agent communication is considered as actions that agents perform on social commitments and arguments. The dynamics of agent conversation is represented by this notion of actions and by the evolution of these commitments and arguments. Our Commitment and Argument Network formalism based on this approach provides an external representation of agent communication dynamics. We argue that this formalism helps agents to participate in conversations in a flexible way because they can reason about their communicative acts using their argumentation systems and the current state of the conversation.

View PDFchevron_right
Diagal: An agent communication language based on dialogue games and sustained by social commitments
Brahim Chaib-draa, Philippe Pasquier

2006

Abstract In recent years, social commitment based approaches have been proposed to solve problems issuing from previous mentalistic based semantics for agent communication languages.

View PDFchevron_right
Engineering issues in inter-agent dialogues
Nikos Karacapilidis

This paper presents a logical framework for modeling of complex dialogues between intelligent and autonomous agents. Our overall approach builds on the assumption that an agent is composed of a set of modules, each of them conveying the appropriate knowledge to carry out a certain dialogue type, such as deliberation, negotiation, persuasion, etc. Much attention has been paid in keeping our framework as operational as possible, in that the architecture of agents and their conversational protocol are thoroughly interrelated. Due to the proposed knowledge structure, set of application-independent rules (called dialogue policies) and the combination of backward and forward reasoning, the framework can generate automatic dialogues between agents.

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Psychology
  • Cognitive Science
  • Social Psychology
  • Computer Science
  • Philosophy
  • Philosophy of Mind
  • Pragmatics
  • Multiagent Systems
  • Cognitive Dissonance
  • Attitude change
  • Multi Agent System
  • Agent communication language
  • Cognitive systems
  • BDI agents
  • Agent Communication
  • Dialogue games

    • Cited by

    A dialogue-based approach for dealing with uncertain and conflicting information in medical diagnosis
    Helena Lindgren

    Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 2018

    In this paper, we propose a multi-agent framework to deal with situations involving uncertain or inconsistent information located in a distributed environment which cannot be combined into a single knowledge base. To this end, we introduce an inquiry dialogue approach based on a combination of possibilistic logic and a formal argumentation-based theory, where possibilistic logic is used to capture uncertain information, and the argumentation-based approach is used to deal with inconsistent knowledge in a distributed environment. We also modify the framework of earlier work, so that the system is not only easier to implement but also more suitable for educational purposes. The suggested approach is implemented in a clinical decision-support system in the domain of dementia diagnosis. The approach allows the physician to suggest a hypothetical diagnosis in a patient case, which is verified through the dialogue if sufficient patient information is present. If not, the user is informed about the missing information and potential inconsistencies in the information as a way to provide support for continuing medical education. The approach is presented, discussed, and applied to one scenario. The results contribute to the theory and application of inquiry dialogues in situations where the data are uncertain and inconsistent.

    View PDFchevron_right
    Narrative Construction of Product Reviews Reveals the Level of Post-Decisional Cognitive Dissonance
    Tibor Polya

    Information, 2021

    Social media platforms host an increasing amount of costumer reviews on a wide range of products. While most studies on product reviews focus on the sentiments expressed or helpfulness judged by readers and on their impact on subsequent buying this study aims at uncovering the psychological state of the persons making the reviews. More specifically, the study applies a narrative approach to the analysis of product reviews and addresses the question what the narrative construction of product reviews reveals about the level of post-decisional cognitive dissonance experienced by reviewers. The study involved 94 participants, who were asked to write a product review on their recently bought cell phones. The level of cognitive dissonance was measured by a self-report scale. The product reviews were analyzed by the Narrative Categorical Content Analytical Toolkit. The analysis revealed that agency, spatio-temporal perspective, and psychological perspective reflected the level of cognitive...

    View PDFchevron_right
    580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved