Dialogue in Rough Context

  • Mihir K. Chakraborty
  • Mohua Banerjee
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3066)


Two agents Ag 1 and Ag 2 confront each other with their own perspectives represented by approximation spaces (U,R 1) and (U,R 2) [3]. They enter into a dialogue (negotiation) over either the extension of the same ‘concept’ or over two pieces of information or beliefs, A and B, the first for Ag 1 and the second for Ag 2 respectively, which are subsets of U. A combined approximation space (U,R) emerges out of the superimposition of the equivalence classes due to R 1 and R 2.

Each agent performs some specified operations one at a time. After an operation by an agent the turn comes to the co-agent. Rounds and effects of rounds are then defined. A dialogue is a sequence of rounds.

There are certain rules of the game that depend on the three approximation spaces.

The result of a dialogue after n rounds starting with the initial sets A,B is a pair (A n ,B n ), A n ,B n being supersets of A and B respectively. A dialogue is characterised depending on the various kinds of overlap of the sets A n and B n and their lower and upper approximations. It is satisfactory if the sets A n and B n turn out to be roughly equal with respect to the approximation space (U,R). Dialogues of lower satisfaction are not altogether rejected. This latter type generalizes the notion of Belief-Merging [2].

Some preliminary observations are made and future directions of work are indicated.


Approximation Space Lower Satisfaction 14th European Conf Indian National Science Academy Indiscernibility Relation 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Banerjee, M., Chakraborty, M.K.: A category for rough sets. Foundations of Computing and Decision Sciences 18(3-4), 167–180 (1993)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Booth, R.: A negotiation style framework for non-prioritized revision. Preprint, University of Leipzig (2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pawlak, Z.: Rough sets. Int. J. Comp. Inf. Sci. 11, 341–356 (1982)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Walton, D.N., Krabbe, E.C.W.: Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. SUNY Press, Albany (1995)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wooldridge, H.J., Parsons, S.: Languages for negotiation. In: Proc. 14th European Conf. on AI, ECAI 2000 (2000)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mihir K. Chakraborty
    • 1
  • Mohua Banerjee
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Pure MathematicsUniversity of CalcuttaKolkataIndia
  2. 2.Department of MathematicsIndian Institute of TechnologyKanpurIndia

Personalised recommendations