Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Introduction
Assessment of the DDF Protocol
Discussion
Related Work
Future Research
References

The eightfold way of deliberation dialogue

Profile image of Simon ParsonsSimon Parsons

2007

Abstract

Abstract Deliberation dialogues occur when two or more participants seek to jointly agree on an action or a course of action in some situation. We present the first formal framework for such dialogues, grounding it in a theory of deliberative reasoning from the philosophy of argumentation. We further fully articulate the locutions and rules of a formal dialogue game for this model, so as to specify a protocol for deliberation dialogues.

Related papers

11 Argumentation in the framework of deliberation dialogue
Trevor Bench-Capon

2011

One of the most important lessons of argumentation theory has been that arguments need to be analyzed and evaluated not only by identifying the logical form of an argument in abstraction from its context of use, but also by paying attention to the purpose for which an argument was supposedly used in a conversational setting. In particular, as we will show in this chapter, it is vitally important to distinguish between two different types of conversational frameworks–persuasion dialogue and deliberation dialogue.

View PDFchevron_right
An Empirical Study of Argumentation Schemes for Deliberative Dialogue
Timothy Norman

Proceedings of the Twentieth European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2012

Abstract. Collaborative decision making among agents in a team is a complex activity, and tasks to achieve individual objectives may conflict in a team context. A number of argumentation-based models have been proposed to address the problem, the rationale being that the revelation of background information and constraints can aid in the discovery and resolution of conflicts. To date, however, no empirical studies have been conducted to substantiate these claims.

View PDFchevron_right
Models and Frameworks for Dialogue and Deliberation
J. Cynthia McDermott

Successful dialogue may increase the opportunities to solve conflicts. Current practices have had uneven success. With the introduction of a more systemic process that includes Choice Theory (a non-behavioristic psychology), active listening through Win-Win conflict practices and the recent research in neuroscience, there appears to be greater opportunity for more favorable results. This paper presents multiple practices aimed at creating dialogue and deliberation aimed at exploring issues and perhaps solving problems collectively for the common good.

View PDFchevron_right
Deliberation, Practical Reasoning and Problem-solving
Douglas Walton

We present a series of realistic examples of deliberation and discuss how they can form the basis for building a typology of deliberation dialogues. The observations from our examples are used to suggest that argumentation researchers and philosophers have been thinking about deliberation in overly simplistic ways. We argue that to include all the kinds of argumentation that make up realistic deliberations, it is necessary to distinguish between different kinds of deliberations. We propose a model including a problem-solving type of deliberation based on practical reasoning, characterised by revisions of the initial issue made necessary by the agents' increased knowledge of new circumstances.

View PDFchevron_right
An empirical study of a deliberation dialogue system
Katie Bentley

2011

We present an empirical simulation-based study of the use of valuebased argumentation in two-party deliberation dialogues, investigating the impact that argumentation can have on the quality of the outcome reached. Our simulation allows us to vary the number of values, actions and arguments that appear in the system; we investigate how the behaviour of the system changes as these parameters vary. This parameter sensitivity analysis tells us whether a value-based deliberation dialogue system may be useful for a particular real-world application. We measure the quality of the dialogue outcome (i.e. the action that the agents agree to) against a global view of whether that action would be agreeable to each agent if all of the agents' knowledge were taken into account. We compare the deliberation outcome with a simple consensus forming procedure (where no arguments are exchanged). Our results show that the deliberation dialogue system we present outperforms consensus forming.

View PDFchevron_right
Towards a richer model of deliberation dialogue: Closure problem and change of circumstances
alice toniolo

Argument & Computation, 2016

Models of deliberative dialogue are fundamental for developing autonomous systems that support human practical reasoning. The question discussed in this paper is whether existing models are able to capture the complexity and richness of natural deliberation. In real-world contexts, circumstances relevant to the decision can change rapidly. We reflect on today's leading model of deliberation dialogue and we propose an extension to capture how newly exchanged information about changing circumstances may shape the dialogue. Moreover, in natural deliberation, a dialogue may be successful even if a decision on what to do has not been made. A set of criteria is proposed to address the problem of when to close off the practical reasoning phase of dialogue. We discuss some measures for evaluating the success of a dialogue after closure and we present some initial efforts to introduce the new deliberation features within an existing model of agent dialogue. We believe that our extended model of dialogue may contribute to representing that richness of natural deliberative dialogue that is yet to be addressed in existing models of agent deliberation.

View PDFchevron_right
Deliberation: A Paradigm in the Arena of Public Argument
Luis Vega-Reñón, PAULA OLMOS

2007

Leaving aside the usual approach to deliberation as a private or simulated weighing, based on the traditional model for practical reasoning, normative logic and argumentation schemes, we aim to characterize deliberation as a particular instance of discursive interaction in the public arena in which information, options and preferences are evaluated and handled in order to achieve a decision or a practical resolution in a responsible and reasoned way; a crossroads between epistemic-discursive conditions and ethical-political programs.

View PDFchevron_right
Missing Phases of Deliberation Dialogue for Real Applications
Timothy Norman, Douglas Walton, alice toniolo

D. Walton, A. Toniolo and T. J. Norman, Proceedings of the 11th International Workshop on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems, 2014.

In this paper, we introduce an extension to current leading models of deliberation dialogue to capture dynamic changes of circumstances during an ongoing dialogue. Moreover, in natural deliberation, a dialogue may be successful even if a decision on what to do has not been made. A set of criteria is proposed to address the problem of when to close o the practical reasoning phase of dialogue.

View PDFchevron_right
Dialectical trade-offs in the design of protocols for computer-mediated deliberation
Marcin Lewinski

deal models of dialectical argumentation, such the pragma-dialecti- cal critical discussion or Walton and Krabbe’s persuasion dialogues, comprise of a set of rules that define reasonable argumentation under idealised conditions. Assuming such conditions, dialectical rules are meant to secure an orderly pro- cedure for testing opinions. However, in actual circumstances violations of ar- gumentative rules – identified as fallacies – can and do occur. Pragma-dialectics treats fallacies as “derailments of strategic manoeuvring”, that is, contraven- tions of dialectical rules for a critical discussion committed by actual arguers for rhetorical gains. Hence, the predicament of actual argumentation is a possible (but not necessary) trade-off between dialectical constraints and rhetorical op- portunities. In this paper I preliminarily conceptualise a different predicament that actual arguers may face. The sets of dialectical rules proposed in ideal mo- dels of argumentation are consistent and thus unproblematic, as long as they presuppose idealised conditions. However, when put to work in actual proce- dures for argumentation, the rules may clash with one another. For instance, the freedom to unlimitedly criticise the opponent may hinder the progress to- wards rational resolution of a difference of opinion. As a result, arguers may face a predicament in which the only way to observe one of the rules of reasonable argumentation is to violate another one. I call such possible clashes dialecti- cal trade-offs, because they are clashes between dialectical rules that arise in actual circumstances of argumentation. Dialectical trade-offs are practical con- cerns that do not undermine the general composition and usefulness of the ideal models. Yet, they point to a practical difficulty in designing consistent and ap- plicable protocols for reasonable argumentation. I will illustrate this difficulty by contrasting two kinds of protocols for computer-mediated deliberation: Inter- net forums for informal deliberation and formal models of deliberative dialogues developed within the field of Artificial Intelligence.

View PDFchevron_right
Debates and Decisions: On a Rationale of Argumentation Rules
Ariel Rubinstein

Games and Economic Behavior, 2001

We view a debate as a mechanism by which an uninformed decision maker the. listener extracts information from two informed debaters, who hold contradicting positions regarding the right decision. During the debate, the debaters raise arguments and, based on these arguments, the listener reaches a conclusion. Using a simple example, we investigate the mechanism design problem of constructing rules of debate that maximize the probability that the listener reaches the right conclusion, subject to constraints on the form and length of the debate. It is shown that optimal debate rules have the property that the conclusion drawn by the listener is not necessarily the same as the conclusion he would have drawn, had he interpreted the information, revealed to him or her during the debate, literally. The optimal design of debate rules requires that the information elicited from a counterargument depends on the argument it counterargues. We also link our discussion with the pragmatics literature.

View PDFchevron_right

References (85)

  1. R. Alexy. A theory of practical discourse. In S. Benhabib and F. Dallmayr, editors, The Communicative Ethics Controversy, Studies in Contemporary German Social Thought, pages 151-190. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, 1990. Translation by D. Frisby of: Eine Theorie des praktischen Diskurses. In: W. Oelmüller, Edi- tor, Normenbegründung-Normendurchsetzung. Paderborn, Germany: Schöningh, 1978.
  2. J. F. Allen, L. K. Schubert, G. Ferguson, P. Heeman, C. H. Hwang, T. Kato, M. Light, N. G. Martin, B. W. Miller, M. Poesio, and D. R. Traum. The TRAINS Project: a case study in building a conversational planning agent. Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, 7:7-48, 1995.
  3. S. J. Ambler. A categorical approach to the semantics of argumentation. Mathe- matical Structures in Computer Science, 6:167-188, 1996.
  4. L. Amgoud, N. Maudet, and S. Parsons. Modelling dialogues using argumenta- tion. In E. Durfee, editor, Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems (ICMAS-2000), pages 31-38, Boston, MA, USA, 2000. IEEE Press.
  5. L. Amgoud and S. Parsons. Agent dialogues with conflicting preferences. In J-J. Meyer and M. Tambe, editors, Pre-Proceedings of the Eighth International Workshop on Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages (ATAL 2001), pages 1-14, Seattle, WA, USA, 2001.
  6. L. Amgoud, S. Parsons, and N. Maudet. Arguments, dialogue, and negotiation. In W. Horn, editor, Proceedings of the Fourteenth European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI-2000), pages 338-342, Berlin, Germany, 2000. IOS Press.
  7. T. J. M. Bench-Capon, P. E. Dunne, and P. H. Leng. Interacting with knowledge- based systems through dialogue games. In Proceedings of the Eleventh Interna- tional Conference on Expert Systems and Applications, pages 123-140, Avignon, France, 1991.
  8. A. Church. A formulation of the simple theory of types. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 5(2):56-68, 1940.
  9. M. Colombetti and M. Verdicchio. An analysis of agent speech acts as institu- tional actions. In C. Castelfranchi and W. L. Johnson, editors, Proceedings of the First International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS 2002), Bologna, Italy, pages 1157-1164, New York City, NY, USA, 2002. ACM Press.
  10. J. Conklin and M. L. Begeman. gIBIS: A hypertext tool for exploratory policy discussion. In Proceedings of the Second Conferences on Computer-Supported Co-operative Work, pages 140-152, New York, NY, USA, 1988. ACM Press.
  11. F. Dignum, B. Dunin-Ke ¸plicz, and R. Verbrugge. Agent theory for team forma- tion by dialogue. In C. Castelfranchi and Y. Lespérance, editors, Proceedings of the Seventh International Workshop on Agent Theories, Architectures, and Lan- guages (ATAL-2000), pages 141-156, Boston, USA, 2000.
  12. F. Dignum, B. Dunin-Ke ¸plicz, and R. Verbrugge. Creating collective intention through dialogue. Logic Journal of the IGPL, 9(2):305-319, 2001.
  13. R. M. van Eijk. Programming Languages for Agent Communications. PhD thesis, Department of Computer Science, Utrecht University, The Netherlands, 2000.
  14. C. Ess. The political computer: Democracy, CMC, and Habermas. In C. Ess, editor, Philosophical Perspectives on Computer-Mediated Communication, pages 197-230. State University of New York Press, Albany, NY, USA, 1996.
  15. R. E. Fikes and N. J. Nilsson. STRIPS: A new approach to the application of theorem proving to problem solving. Artificial Intelligence, 2:189-208, 1971.
  16. A. Finkelstein and H. Fuks. Multi-party specification. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Workshop on Software Specification and Design, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 1989. ACM Sigsoft Engineering Notes.
  17. D. J. Fiorino. Environmental risk and democratic process: a critical review. Columbia Journal of Environmental Law, 14:501-547, 1989.
  18. FIPA. Dutch Auction Interaction Protocol Specification. Technical Report XC00032F, Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents, 10 August 2001.
  19. FIPA. English Auction Interaction Protocol Specification. Technical Report XC00031F, Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents, 10 August 2001.
  20. FIPA. Communicative Act Library Specification. Standard SC00037J, Founda- tion for Intelligent Physical Agents, 3 December 2002.
  21. R. A. Flores and R. C. Kremer. Bringing coherence to agent conversations. In M. J. Wooldridge, G. Weiß, and P. Ciancarine, editors, Agent-Oriented Soft- ware Engineering II. Second International Workshop, (AOSE-2001), Montreal, Canada, May 29, 2001, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2222, pages 50-67.
  22. Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2002.
  23. J. Forester. The Deliberative Practitioner: Encouraging Participatory Planning Processes. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, 1999.
  24. D. M. Gabbay and J. Woods. Non-cooperation in dialogue logic. Synthese, 127(1- 2):161-186, 2001.
  25. S. J. Gollop. Paradoxes of the Black Box: The Allais Paradox, Instransitive Pref- erences and Orthodox Decision Theory. M.A. Thesis, Department of Philosophy, University of Auckland, New Zealand, 2000.
  26. T. F. Gordon and N. Karacapilidis. The Zeno argumentation framework. In Pro- ceedings of the Sixth International Conference on AI and Law, pages 10-18, New York, NY, USA, 1997. ACM Press.
  27. M. Greaves, H. Holmback, and J. Bradshaw. What is a conversation policy? In F. Dignum and M. Greaves, editors, Issues in Agent Communication, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 1916, pages 118-131. Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2000.
  28. H. P. Grice. Logic and conversation. In P. Cole and J. L. Morgan, editors, Syntax and Semantics III: Speech Acts, pages 41-58. Academic Press, New York City, NY, USA, 1975.
  29. 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.
  30. J. Habermas. Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action. MIT Press, Cam- bridge, MA, USA, 1991. Translation by C. Lenhardt and S. W. Nicholsen of: Moralbewusstsein un kommunikatives Handeln. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt-am-Main, Germany, 1983.
  31. J. Habermas. Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, 1996. Translation by W. Rehg of: Faktizität und Geltung. Beiträge zur Diskurstheorie des Rechts und des demokratischen Rechtsstaats. Published by Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main, Germany, 1992.
  32. J. Habermas. The Inclusion of the Other: Studies in Political Theory. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, 1998. Edited by C. Cronin and P. De Greiff.
  33. C. L. Hamblin. Fallacies. Methuen and Co Ltd, London, UK, 1970.
  34. J. Herbst. State Politics in Zimbabwe, volume 45 of Perspectives on Southern Africa. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, USA, 1990.
  35. D. Hitchcock. Some principles of rational mutual inquiry. In F. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, and C. A. Willard, editors, Proceedings of the Sec- ond International Conference on Argumentation, pages 236-243, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1991. SICSAT: International Society for the Study of Argu- mentation.
  36. J. Hulstijn. Dialogue Models for Inquiry and Transaction. PhD thesis, Univer- siteit Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands, 2000.
  37. L. Hunsberger and M. Zancanaro. A mechanism for group decision making in collaborative activity. In Proceedings of the Seventeenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2000), pages 30-35, Menlo Park, CA, USA, 2000. AAAI Press.
  38. R. Johnson. Manifest Rationality: A Pragmatic Theory of Argument. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, USA, 2000.
  39. N. Karacapilidis and P. Moraitis. Engineering issues in inter-agent dialogues. In F. van Harmelen, editor, Proceedings of the 15th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI 2002), pages 58-62, Lyon, France, 2002.
  40. N. Karacapilidis and P. Moraitis. Inter-agent dialogues in electronic marketplaces. Computational Intelligence, 20(1):1-17, 2004.
  41. N. Karacapilidis and D. Papadias. Computer supported argumentation and collab- orative decision making: the HERMES system. Information Systems, 26(4):259- 277, 2001.
  42. N. Karacapilidis, D. Papadias, T. Gordon, and H. Voss. Collaborative environ- mental planning with GeoMed. European Journal of Operational Research, 102(2):335-346, 1997.
  43. E. C. W. Krabbe. The problem of retraction in critical discussion. Synthese, 127(1-2):141-159, 2001.
  44. I. Lakatos. Proofs and Refutations: The Logic of Mathematical Discovery. Cam- bridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1976.
  45. J. A. Levin and J. A. Moore. Dialogue-games: metacommunications structures for natural language interaction. Cognitive Science, 1(4):395-420, 1978.
  46. P. Lorenzen and K. Lorenz. Dialogische Logik. Wissenschaftliche Buchge- sellschaft, Darmstadt, Germany, 1978.
  47. R. Luehrs, T. Malsch, and K. Voss. Internet, discourses, and democracy. In T. Ter- ano, T. Nishida, A. Namatame, S. Tsumoto, Y. Ohsawa, and T. Washio, editors, New Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence: Joint JSAI 2001 Workshop Post Proceed- ings, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 2253, pages 67-74. Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2001.
  48. J. Lukacs. Five Days in London: May 1940. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT, USA, 1999.
  49. J. D. MacKenzie. Question-begging in non-cumulative systems. Journal of Philo- sophical Logic, 8:117-133, 1979.
  50. M. Mandler. A difficult choice in preference theory: rationality implies com- pleteness or transitivity but not both. In E. Millgram, editor, Varieties of Practi- cal Reasoning, pages 373-402. MIT Press: A Bradford Book, Cambridge, MA, USA, 2001.
  51. N. Maudet and F. Evrard. A generic framework for dialogue game implementa- tion. In Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Formal Semantics and Pragmat- ics of Dialog, Thirteenth International Twente Workshop on Language Technol- ogy (TWLT 13), Universite Twente, The Netherlands, 1998. Centre for Telemat- ics and Information Technology.
  52. P. McBurney, R. M. van Eijk, S. Parsons, and L. Amgoud. A dialogue-game protocol for agent purchase negotiations. Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 7(3):235-273, 2003.
  53. P. McBurney and S. Parsons. Representing epistemic uncertainty by means of di- alectical argumentation. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 32(1- 4):125-169, 2001.
  54. P. McBurney and S. Parsons. Games that agents play: A formal framework for dialogues between autonomous agents. Journal of Logic, Language and Informa- tion, 11(3):315-334, 2002.
  55. P. McBurney, S. Parsons, and M. Wooldridge. Desiderata for agent argumentation protocols. In C. Castelfranchi and W. L. Johnson, editors, Proceedings of the First International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS 2002), Bologna, Italy, pages 402-409, New York City, NY, USA, 2002. ACM Press.
  56. A. Naess. Communication and Argument: Elements of Applied Semantics. Allen and Unwin, London, UK, 1966. Translation of: En del Elementaere Logiske Emner. Universitetsforlaget, Oslo, Norway, 1947.
  57. K. Nakata. Enabling public discourse. In T. Terano, T. Nishida, A. Namatame, S. Tsumoto, Y. Ohsawa, and T. Washio, editors, New Frontiers in Artificial Intel- ligence: Joint JSAI 2001 Workshop Post Proceedings, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 2253, pages 59-66. Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2001.
  58. A. J. Nathan and P. Link, editors. The Tiananmen Papers. Little, Brown and Company, London, UK, 2001. Compiled by Zhang Liang, with an afterword by O. Schell.
  59. H. P. Nii. Blackboard systems (Part One): The blackboard model of problem solv- ing and the evolution of blackboard architectures. The AI Magazine, Summer:38- 53, 1986.
  60. P. Panzarasa, N. R. Jennings, and T. J. Norman. Formalizing collaborative decision-making and practical reasoning in multi-agent systems. Journal of Logic and Computation, 12(1):55-117, 2002.
  61. S. Parsons and P. McBurney. Argumentation-based dialogues for agent co- ordination. Group Decision and Negotiation, 12(5):415-439, 2003.
  62. S. Parsons, C. Sierra, and N. R. Jennings. Agents that reason and negotiate by arguing. Logic and Computation, 8(3):261-292, 1998.
  63. S. Parsons, M. Wooldridge, and L. Amgoud. An analysis of formal interagent dialogues. In C. Castelfranchi and W. L. Johnson, editors, Proceedings of the First International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS 2002), pages 394-401, New York, NY, USA, 2002. ACM Press.
  64. A. Pekeč and M. H. Rothkopf. Combinatorial auction design. Working Paper, July 2001. Presentation to Workshop on Electronic Market Design, Infonomics Group, University of Maastricht, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
  65. H. Prakken. On dialogue systems with speech acts, arguments, and counterargu- ments. In M. Ojeda-Aciego, M. I. P. de Guzman, G. Brewka, and L. M. Pereira, editors, Proceedings of the Seventh European Workshop on Logic in Artificial Intelligence (JELIA-2000), Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 1919, pages 224-238, Berlin, Germany, 2000. Springer.
  66. C. Reed. Dialogue frames in agent communications. In Y. Demazeau, editor, Pro- ceedings of the Third International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems (ICMAS- 98), pages 246-253. IEEE Press, 1998.
  67. W. Rehg. The argumentation theorist in deliberative democracy. Controversia: An International Journal of Debate and Democratic Renewal, 1(1):18-42, 2002.
  68. W. Rehg, P. McBurney, and S. Parsons. Computer decision-support systems for public argumentation: assessing deliberative legitimacy. AI and Society, 2004. In press.
  69. H. W. J. Rittel and M. M. Webber. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4:155-169, 1973.
  70. H. M. Robert, S. C. Robert, H. M. Robert III, W. J. Evans, D. H. Honemann, and T. J. Balch. Robert's Rules of Order. Perseus, Cambridge, MA, USA, tenth edition, 2000.
  71. J. S. Rosenschein and G. Zlotkin. Rules of Encounter: Designing Conventions for Automated Negotiation among Computers. Artificial Intelligence Series. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, 1994.
  72. F. Sadri, F. Toni, and P. Torroni. Logic agents, dialogues and negotiation: an abductive approach. In M. Schroeder and K. Stathis, editors, Proceedings of the Symposium on Information Agents for E-Commerce, Artificial Intelligence and the Simulation of Behaviour Conference (AISB 2001), York, UK, 2001. AISB.
  73. T. W. Sandholm. Distributed rational decision making. In G. Weiss, editor, Multiagent Systems: A Modern Introduction to Distributed Artificial Intelligence, pages 201-258. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, 1999.
  74. J. Searle. Rationality in Action. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, 2001.
  75. A. Sen. Rationality and Freedom. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, 2002.
  76. C. Sierra, N. R. Jennings, P. Noriega, and S. Parsons. A framework for argumentation-based negotiation. In M. P. Singh, A. Rao, and M. J. Wooldridge, editors, Intelligent Agents IV: Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages. Proceedings of the Fourth International ATAL Workshop, Lecture Notes in Ar- tificial Intelligence 1365, pages 177-192, Berlin, Germany, 1998. Springer.
  77. M. P. Singh. A social semantics for agent communications languages. In F. Dignum, B. Chaib-draa, and H. Weigand, editors, Proceedings of the Workshop on Agent Communication Languages, International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-99), Berlin, Germany. Springer. In press.
  78. M. P. Singh. A conceptual analysis of commitments in multiagent systems. Tech- nical Report 96-09, Department of Computer Science, North Carolina State Uni- versity, Raleigh, NC, USA, 1996.
  79. M. P. Singh. An ontology for commitments in multiagent systems: toward a uni- fication of normative concepts. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 7:97-113, 1999.
  80. K. Sycara. Persuasive argumentation in negotiation. Theory and Decision, 28:203-242, 1990.
  81. R. D. Tennent. Semantics of Programming Languages. International Series in Computer Science. Prentice-Hall, Hemel Hempstead, UK, 1991.
  82. 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.
  83. T. Webler, S. Tuler, and R. Krueger. What is a good public participation process? Five perspectives from the public. Environmental Management, 27(3):435-450, 2001.
  84. H. Wohlrapp. A new light on non-deductive argumentation schemes. Argumen- tation, 12:341-350, 1998.
  85. M. J. Wooldridge. Semantic issues in the verification of agent communication languages. Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 3(1):9-31, 2000.

Related papers

Argumentation-based dialogues for deliberation
Simon Parsons

2005

Abstract 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 reduction of this goal into sub-goals, and the formation of a plan to achieve the overall goal.

View PDFchevron_right
Argumentation in the Framework of Deliberation Dialogue
Douglas Walton

D. Walton, K. Atkinson, T. Bench-Capon, A. Wyner and D. Cartwright, Arguing Global Governance, ed. Corneliu Bjola and Markus Kornprobst, London, Routledge, 2010, 210-230.

According to argumentation theory, reasoning takes place in different types of dialogue. These different dialogue types may be nested within one another. Current research in artificial intelligence is building formal models corresponding to each of these types of dialogue and showing how they can be implemented in, for example, multi-agent communications systems. In this paper, we (1) clarify the distinction between deliberation dialogue and persuasion dialogue, (2) survey some recent research in artificial intelligence studying formal properties of deliberation dialogue, (3) and present a model of argumentation in deliberation dialogue that has proved to be useful in electronic democracy

View PDFchevron_right
Argumentation-Based multi-agent dialogues for deliberation
Simon Parsons

2006

Abstract. 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 that we are interested in is a process that combines both the selection of an overall goal, the reduction of this goal into sub-goals, and the formation of a plan to achieve the overall goal.

View PDFchevron_right
A Formal Argumentation Framework for Deliberation Dialogues
Gerard Vreeswijk

Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2011

Agents engage in deliberation dialogues to collectively decide on a course of action. To solve conflicts of opinion that arise, they can question claims and supply arguments. Existing models fail to capture the interplay between the provided arguments as well as successively selecting a winner from the proposals. This paper introduces a general framework for agent deliberation dialogues that uses an explicit reply structure to produce coherent dialogues, guides in outcome selection and provide pointers for agent strategies.

View PDFchevron_right
A Framework for Multiagent Deliberation Based on Dialectical Argumentation
Guillermo R Simari

Simply put, a multiagent system can be seen as a collection of autonomous agents that as a whole are able to accomplish goals beyond the reach of any of its members. Agent interaction is widely acknowledged as the feature that provides this added potential. Since many, if not all, of the attractive agent interactions can be recasted as deliberations, a formalization for this process is being actively seek.

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