Advertisement

Dialogue Games for Agent Argumentation

  • Peter McBurney
  • Simon Parsons
Chapter

The rise of the Internet and the growth of distributed computing have led to a major paradigm shift in software engineering and computer science. Until recently, the notion of computation has been variously construed as numerical calculation, as information processing, or as intelligent symbol analysis, but increasingly, it is now viewed as distributed cognition and interaction between intelligent entities [60]. This new view has major implications for the conceptualization, design, engineering and control of software systems, most profoundly expressed in the concept of systems of intelligent software agents, or multi-agent systems [99]. Agents are software entities with control over their own execution; the design of such agents, and of multi-agent systems of them, presents major research and software engineering challenges to computer scientists.

Keywords

Multiagent System Operational Semantic Agent Communication Argumentation Framework Denotational Semantic 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are grateful for partial financial support received from the EC Information Society Technologies (IST) programme, through project ASPIC (IST-FP6-002307). This work was also partially supported by the US Army Research Laboratory and the UK Ministry of Defence under Agreement Number W911NF-06-3-0001. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of the US Army Research Laboratory, the US Government, the UK Ministry of Defense, or the UK Government. The US and UK Governments are authorized to reproduce and distribute reprints for Government purposes notwithstanding any copyright notation hereon.

References

  1. 1.
    S. Abramsky. Semantics of interaction: an introduction to game semantics. In A. M. Pitts and P. Dybjer, editors, Semantics and Logics of Computation, pages 1–31. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1997.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    S. J. Ambler. A categorical approach to the semantics of argumentation. Mathematical Structures in Computer Science, 6:167–188, 1996.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    L. Amgoud, N. Maudet, and S. Parsons. Modelling dialogues using argumentation. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    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.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Aristotle. Topics. Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK, 1928. (W. D. Ross, Editor).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    K. Atkinson, T. Bench-Capon, and P. McBurney. A dialogue game protocol for multi-agent argument for proposals over action. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 11(2):153–171, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    K. Atkinson, R. Girle, P. McBurney, and S. Parsons. Command dialogues. In I. Rahwan and P. Moraitis, editors, Proceedings of the Fifth International Workshop on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems (ArgMAS 2008), Lisbon, Portugal, 2008. AAMAS 2008.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    J.L. Austin. How To Do Things with Words. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 1962.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    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 International Conference on Expert Systems and Applications, pages 123–140, Avignon, 1991.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    T.J.M. Bench-Capon, T. Geldard, and P.H. Leng. A method for the computational modelling of dialectical argument with dialogue games. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 8:233–254, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    E. Black and A. Hunter. A generative inquiry dialogue system. In M. Huhns, O. Shehory, E.H. Durfee, and M. Yokoo, editors, Proceedings of the Sixth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS 2007), Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, 2007. IFAAMAS, ACM Press.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    P. Bretier and D. Sadek. A rational agent as the kernel of a cooperative spoken dialogue system: Implementing a logical theory of interaction. In J.P.M. et al., editor, Intelligent Agents III, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 1193, pages 189–204. Springer, Berlin, Germany, 1997.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    C. Cayrol, S. Doutre, and J. Mengin. On decision problems related to the preferred semantics for argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation, 13(3):377–403, 2003.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    E. Cogan, S. Parsons, and P. McBurney. New types of inter-agent dialogs. In S.P. et al., editor, Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems: Second International Workshop (ArgMAS 2005), Lecture Notes in Computer Science 4049, pages 154–168. Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2006.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    P. R. Cohen and H. J. Levesque. Rational interaction as the basis for communication. In P.R.C. et al., editor, Intentions in Communication, pages 221–255. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, 1990.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    P. R. Cohen and C. R. Perrault. Elements of a plan-based theory of speech acts. Cognitive Science, 3:177–212, 1979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    S. Das. How much does an agent believe: An extension of modal epistemic logic. In A. Hunter and S. Parsons, editors, Applications of Uncertainty Formalisms, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 1455, pages 415–426. Springer, Berlin, Germany, 1998.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    A.P. Dawid and V.G. Vovk. Prequential probability: principles and properties. Bernoulli, 5:125–162, 1999.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    F.S. deBoer, R. Eijk, W.v. Hoek, and J.-J.C. Meyer. A fully abstract model for the exchange of information in multi-agent systems. Theoretical Computer Science, 290(3):1753–1773, 2003.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    F. Dignum, B. Dunin-Ke¸plicz, and R. Verbrugge. Agent theory for team formation by dialogue. In C. Castelfranchi and Y. Lespérance, editors, Intelligent Agents VII, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 1986, pages 150–166, Berlin, Germany, 2000. Springer.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    F. Dignum, B. Dunin-Ke¸plicz, and R. Verbrugge. Creating collective intention through dialogue. Logic Journal of the IGPL, 9(2):305–319, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    S. Doutre, P. McBurney, and M. Wooldridge. Law-governed Linda as a semantics for agent interaction protocols. In F.D. et al., editor, Proceedings of the Fourth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS 2005), pages 1257–1258, New York City, NY, USA, 2005. ACM Press.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    S. Doutre, P. McBurney, M. Wooldridge, and W. Barden. Information-seeking agent dialogs with permissions and arguments. Technical Report ULCS-05-010, Department of Computer Science, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK, 2005.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    P.E. Dunne. Prevarication in dispute protocols. In G. Sartor, editor, Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on AI and Law (ICAIL-03), pages 12–21, New York, NY, USA, 2003. ACM Press.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    P.E. Dunne. Suspicion of hidden agenda in persuasive argument. In P.E. Dunne and T.J.M. Bench-Capon, editors, Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2006, pages 329–340, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2006. IOS Press.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    P.E. Dunne and T.J.M. Bench-Capon. Two party immediate response disputes: Properties and efficiency. Artificial Intelligence, 149(2):221–250, 2003.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    P.E. Dunne and P. McBurney. Optimal utterances in dialogue protocols. In J.S.R. et al., editor, Proceedings of the Second International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS 2003), pages 608–615, New York City, NY, USA, 2003. ACM Press.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    F. Dürrenmatt. A Dangerous Game. Jonathan Cape, London, UK, 1960. (Translation by R. and C. Winston of Die Panne, published in German in 1956.).Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    R. Eijk. Programming Languages for Agent Communications. PhD thesis, Department of Computer Science, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands, 2000.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    R. Eijk, F.S. deBoer, W.v. Hoek, and J.-J.C. Meyer. Operational semantics for agent communications. In F. Dignum and M. Greaves, editors, Issues in Agent Communications, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 1916, pages 80–95. Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2000.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    R. Eijk, F.S. deBoer, W.v. Hoek, and J.-J.C. Meyer. Modal logic with bounded quantification over worlds. Journal of Logic and Computation, 11(5):701–715, 2001.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    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.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    T. Finin, Y. Labrou, and J. Mayfield. KQML as an agent communication language. In J. Bradshaw, editor, Software Agents, pages 291–316. MIT Press, Cambridge, USA, 1997.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    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.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    FIPA. Communicative Act Library Specification. Standard SC00037J, IEEE Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents, 3 December 2002.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    D. Gelernter. Generative communication in Linda. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 7(1):80–112, 1985.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    R. Goldblatt. Topoi: The Categorial Analysis of Logic. North-Holland, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1979.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    T.F. Gordon. The Pleadings Game: An exercise in computational dialectics. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 2:239–292, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    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.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    C.L. Hamblin. Language and the Theory of Information. Ph.D. thesis, Logic and Scientific Method Programme, University of London, London, UK, 1957.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    C.L. Hamblin. Fallacies. Methuen, London, UK, 1970.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    J. C. Harsanyi. Approaches to the bargaining problem before and after the theory of games: a critical discussion of Zeuthen’s, Hicks’ and Nash’s theories. Econometrica, 24:144–157, 1956.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    D. Hilbert. Grundlagen der Geometrie. In Festschrift zur Feier der Enthüllung des Gauss-Weber-Denkmals in Göttingen, pages 3–92. Teubner, Leipzig, Germany, 1899.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    K.V. Hindriks, F.S. de Boer, W. Hoek, and J.-J.C. Meyer. Formal semantics for an abstract agent progamming language. In M.P.S. et al., editor, Intelligent Agents IV, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 1365, pages 215–229. Springer, Berlin, Germany, 1998.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    J. Hintikka. Language-games for quantifiers. Americal Philosophical Quarterly Monograph Series 2: Studies in Logical Theory, pages 46–72, 1968. Blackwell, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    J. Hintikka. On the development of the model-theoretic viewpoint in logical theory. Synthese, 77(1):1–36, 1988.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    J. Hintikka and G. Sandu. Game-theoretical semantics. In J. Benthem and A. Meulen, editors, Handbook of Logic and Language, pages 361–410. Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    W. Hodges. A Shorter Model Theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1997.MATHGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    J. Hulstijn. Dialogue Models for Inquiry and Transaction. PhD thesis, Universiteit Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands, 2000.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    J. Hulstijn, M. Dastani, and L. Torre. Negotiation protocols and dialogue games. In Proceedings of the Belgian-Dutch AI Conference (BNAIC-2000), ADDRESS =, 2000.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    H. Jakobovits and D. Vermeir. Dialectic semantics for argumentation frameworks. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL-99), pages 63–72, New York, NY, USA, 1999. ACM Press.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    M.W. Johnson, P. McBurney, and S. Parsons. When are two protocols the same? In M.-P. Huget, editor, Communication in Multi-Agent Systems: Agent Communication Languages and Conversation Policies, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 2650, pages 253–268. Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2003.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    H. Kamp and U. Reyle. From Discourse to Logic: Introduction to Modeltheoretic Semantics of Natural Language, Formal Logic and Discourse Representation Theory. Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1993.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    N.C. Karunatillake. Argumentation-Based Negotiation in a Social Context. Ph.D. thesis, School of Electronics and Computer Science, University of Southampton, UK, 2006.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    P. Krause, S. Ambler, M. Elvang-Gørannson, and J. Fox. A logic of argumentation for reasoning under uncertainty. Computational Intelligence, 11 (1):113–131, 1995.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    S. Kripke. A completeness proof in modal logic. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 24:1–14, 1959.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    J.A. Levin and J.A. Moore. Dialogue-games: metacommunications structures for natural language interaction. Cognitive Science, 1(4):395–420, 1978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    S.C. Levinson. Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1983.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    P. Lorenzen and K. Lorenz. Dialogische Logik. Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt, Germany, 1978.MATHGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    M. Luck, P. McBurney, O. Shehory, and S. Willmott. Agent Technology: Computing as Interaction. A Roadmap for Agent Based Computing. AgentLink III, the European Co-ordination Action for Agent-Based Computing, Southampton, UK, 2005.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    S. Mac Lane. Categories for the Working Mathematician. Springer, New York, USA, 1971.MATHGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    J.D. MacKenzie. Question-begging in non-cumulative systems. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 8:117–133, 1979.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    P. McBurney, R. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    P. McBurney, D. Hitchcock, and S. Parsons. The eightfold way of deliberation dialogue. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 22(1):95–132, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    P. McBurney and S. Parsons. Representing epistemic uncertainty by means of dialectical argumentation. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 32(1–4):125–169, 2001.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    P. McBurney and S. Parsons. Games that agents play: A formal framework for dialogues between autonomous agents. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 11(3):315–334, 2002.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    P. McBurney and S. Parsons. A denotational semantics for deliberation dialogues. In I. Rahwan, P. Moraitis, and C. Reed, editors, Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 3366, pages 162–175. Springer, Berlin, 2005.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    P. McBurney and S. Parsons. Locutions for argumentation in agent interaction protocols. In R.M. van Eijk et al., editor, Developments in Agent Communication, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 3396, pages 209–225. Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2005.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    P. McBurney and S. Parsons. Retraction and revocation in agent deliberation dialogs. Argumentation, 21(3):269–289, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    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), pages 402–409, New York City, NY, USA, 2002. ACM Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    J.C.C. McKinsey and A. Tarski. Some theorems about the Sentential Calculus of Lewis and Heyting. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 13(1):1–15, 1948.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    B. Meyer. Introduction to the Theory of Programming Languages. International Series in Computer Science. Prentice Hall, New York City, NY, USA, 1990.Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    T. Miller and P. McBurney. Using constraints and process algebra for specification of first-class agent interaction protocols. In G.O. et al., editor, Engineering Societies in the Agents World VII, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 4457, pages 245–264, Berlin, Germany, 2007. Springer.Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    T. Miller and P. McBurney. Annotation and matching of first-class agent interaction protocols. In L.P. et al., editor, Seventh International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS 2008), Estoril, Portugal, 2008.Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    C.W. Morris. Foundations of the theory of signs. In O. Neurath, R. Carnap, and C. Morris, editors, International Encyclopedia of Unified Science, pages 77–138. Chicago University Press, Chicago, IL, USA, 1938.Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    S. Parsons. Normative argumentation and qualitative probability. In D.M.G. et al., editor, Qualitative and Quantitative Practical Reasoning, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 1244, pages 466–480, Berlin, Germany, 1997. Springer.Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    S. Parsons and E. Sklar. How agents alter their beliefs after an argumentation-based dialogue. In S.P. et al., editor, Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems: Second International Workshop (ArgMAS 2005), Lecture Notes in Computer Science 4049, pages 297–312. Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2006.Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    L. Perrussel, S. Doutre, J.-M. Thevenin, and P. McBurney. Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems, chapter A persuasion dialog for gaining access to information, pages 63–79. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 4946. Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2008.Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    M. Pieri. Sui principi che reggiono la geometria di posizione. Atti della Reale Accademia delle scienze di Torino, 30:54–108, 1895.Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    H. Prakken. Formal systems for persuasion dialogue. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 21(2):163–188, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    H. Prakken and G. Sartor. Modelling reasoning with precedents in a formal dialogue game. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 6:231–287, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    I. Rahwan, S.D. Ramchurn, N.R. Jennings, P. McBurney, S. Parsons, and E. Sonenberg. Argumentation-based negotiation. Knowledge Engineering Review, 18(4):343–375, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    I. Rahwan, E. Sonenberg, N.R. Jennings, and P. McBurney. STRATUM: a methodology for designing automated negotiation strategies. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 21(6):489–527, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    C. Reed. Dialogue frames in agent communications. In Y. Demazeau, editor, Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems (ICMAS-98), pages 246–253. IEEE Press, 1998.Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    A. Reinach. Die apriorischen Grundlagen des bürgerlichen Rechtes. Jahrbuch für Philosophie und phänomenologische Forschung, 1:685–847, 1913.Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    J.A. Rodríguez, F.J. Martin, P. Noriega, P. Garcia, and C. Sierra. Towards a test-bed for trading agents in electronic auction markets. AI Communications, 11(1):5–19, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    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 (AISB-2001), York, UK, 2001. AISB.Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    J. Searle. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1969.Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    C.E. Shannon. The mathematical theory of communication. In C.E. Shannon and W. Weaver, editors, The Mathematical Theory of Communication, pages 29–125. University of Illinois Press, Chicago, IL, USA, 1963.Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    M.P. Singh. A social semantics for agent communication languages. In F. Dignum and M. Greaves, editors, Issues in Agent Communication, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 1916, pages 31–45. Springer-Verlag: Heidelberg, Germany, 2000.Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    T.C. Tang. Algebraic postulates and a geometric interpretation for the Lewis calculus of strict implication. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, 44:737–744, 1938.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Y. Tang and S. Parsons. Argumentation-based dialogues for deliberation. In F.D. et al., editor, Proceedings of the Fourth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS 2005), pages 552–559, New York City, NY, USA, 2005. ACM Press.Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    A. Tarski. Der Aussagenkalkül und die Topologie. Fundamenta Mathematicae, 31:103–134, 1938.Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    A. Tarski. The concept of truth in formalized languages. In Logic, Semantics, Metamathematics, pages 152–278. Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK, 1956. (Translated by J. H. Woodger).Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    R. Torretti. The Philosophy of Physics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1999.MATHGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    D.N. Walton and E.C.W. Krabbe. Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. SUNY Press, Albany, NY, USA, 1995.Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    M. Wardeh, T.J.M. Bench-Capon, and F. Coenen. Arguments from experience: The PADUA protocol. In P.B. et al., editor, Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2008, pages 405–416, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2008. IOS Press.Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    M.J. Wooldridge. Introduction to Multiagent Systems. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY, USA, 2002.Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    F.Zeuthen. Problems of Monopoly and Economic Warfare. Routledge and Sons, London, UK, 1930.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag US 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of LiverpoolLiverpoolUK
  2. 2.Department of Computer and Information ScienceBrooklyn CollegeNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations