Abstract
In our previous work on dialogue games for agent interaction, an agent’s set of beliefs (Σ) and an agent’s “commitment store” (CS) — the set of locutions uttered by the agent — play a crucial role. The usual assumption made in this work is that the set of beliefs is static through the course of a dialogue, while the commitment store is dynamic. While the assumption of static beliefs is reasonable during the progress of the dialogue, it seems clear that some form of belief change is appropriate once a dialogue is complete. What form this change should take is our subject in this paper.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C.: On the acceptability of arguments in preference-based argumentation framework. In: Proceedings of the 14th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 1–7 (1998)
Chaib-Draa, B., Dignum, F.: Trends in agent communication language. Computational Intelligence 18(2), 89–101 (2002)
Dignum, F., Dunin-Kȩplicz, B., Verbrugge, R.: Agent theory for team formation by dialogue. In: Castelfranchi, C., Lespérance, Y. (eds.) Seventh Workshop on Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages, Boston, USA, pp. 141–156 (2000)
Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence 77, 321–357 (1995)
Flores, R.A., Kremer, R.C.: To commit or not to commit. Computational Intelligence 18(2), 120–173 (2002)
Gabbay, D.M., Woods, J.: More on non-cooperation in Dialogue Logic. Logic Journal of the IGPL 9(2), 321–339 (2001)
Gabbay, D.M., Woods, J.: Non-cooperation in Dialogue Logic. Synthese 127(1-2), 161–186 (2001)
Gärdenfors, P.: Knowledge in Flux. MIT Press, Cambridge (1988)
Hamblin, C.L.: Mathematical models of dialogue. Theoria 37, 130–155 (1971)
Kraus, S., Sycara, K., Evenchik, A.: Reaching agreements through argumentation: a logical model and implementation. Artificial Intelligence 104(1–2), 1–69 (1998)
McBurney, P., Parsons, S.: Representing epistemic uncertainty by means of dialectical argumentation. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 32(1–4), 125–169 (2001)
Parsons, S., McBurney, P., Wooldridge, M.: Some preliminary steps towards a meta-theory for formal inter-agent dialogues. In: Rahwan, I. (ed.) Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Argumentation in Multiagent Systems, New York (2004)
Parsons, S., Wooldridge, M., Amgoud, L.: An analysis of formal inter-agent dialogues. In: 1st International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems. ACM Press, New York (2002)
Parsons, S., Wooldridge, M., Amgoud, L.: On the outcomes of formal inter-agent dialogues. In: 2nd International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems. ACM Press, New York (2003)
Reed, C.: Dialogue frames in agent communications. In: Demazeau, Y. (ed.) Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems, pp. 246–253. IEEE Press, Los Alamitos (1998)
Schroeder, M., Plewe, D.A., Raab, A.: Ultima ratio: should Hamlet kill Claudius? In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Autonomous Agents, pp. 467–468 (1998)
Sklar, E., Parsons, S.: Towards the application of argumentation-based dialogues for education. In: Jennings, N.R., Sierra, C., Sonenberg, E., Tambe, M. (eds.) Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems. IEEE Press, Los Alamitos (2004)
Sklar, E., Parsons, S., Davies, M.: When is it okay to lie? a simple model of contraditcion in agent-based dialogues. In: Proceedings of the First Workshop on Argumentation in Muliagent Systems (2004)
Sycara, K.: Argumentation: Planning other agents plans. In: Proceedings of the Eleventh Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 517–523 (1989)
Tennent, R.D.: Semantics of Programming Languages. International Series in Computer Science. Prentice Hall, Hemel Hempstead (1991)
Walton, D.N., Krabbe, E.C.W.: Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. State University of New York Press, Albany (1995)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2006 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Parsons, S., Sklar, E. (2006). How Agents Alter Their Beliefs After an Argumentation-Based Dialogue. In: Parsons, S., Maudet, N., Moraitis, P., Rahwan, I. (eds) Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems. ArgMAS 2005. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 4049. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/11794578_19
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/11794578_19
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-36355-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-36356-9
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)