Skip to main content

Agreeing What to Do

  • Conference paper

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 6614))

Abstract

When deliberating about what to do, an autonomous agent must generate and consider the relative pros and cons of the different options. The situation becomes even more complicated when an agent is involved in a joint deliberation, as each agent will have its own preferred outcome which may change as new information is received from the other agents involved in the deliberation. We present an argumentation-based dialogue system that allows agents to come to an agreement on how to act in order to achieve a joint goal. The dialogue strategy that we define ensures that any agreement reached is acceptable to each agent, but does not necessarily demand that the agents resolve or share their differing preferences. We give properties of our system and discuss possible extensions.

ACM Category: I.2.11 Multiagent systems. General terms: Theory.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Walton, D.N., Krabbe, E.C.W.: Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. SUNY Press, Albany (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  2. McBurney, P., Hitchcock, D., Parsons, S.: The eightfold way of deliberation dialogue. International Journal of Intelligent Systems 22(1), 95–132 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Tang, Y., Parsons, S.: Argumentation-based dialogues for deliberation. In: 4th Int. Joint Conf. on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, pp. 552–559 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Dignum, F., Vreeswijk, G.: Towards a testbed for multi-party dialogues. In: AAMAS Int. Workshop on Agent Communication Languages and Conversation Policies, pp. 63–71 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Black, E., Atkinson, K.: Dialogues that account for different perspectives in collaborative argumentation. In: 8th Int. Joint Conf. on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, pp. 867–874 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Walton, D.N.: Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Agreeing to differ: Modelling persuasive dialogue between parties without a consensus about values. Informal Logic 22(3), 231–245 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Practical reasoning as presumptive argumentation using action based alternating transition systems. Artificial Intelligence 171(10-15), 855–874 (2007)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Wooldridge, M., van der Hoek, W.: On obligations and normative ability: Towards a logical analysis of the social contract. J. of Applied Logic 3, 396–420 (2005)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. 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)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. van der Weide, T., Dignum, F., Meyer, J.-J., Prakken, H., Vreeswijk, G.: Personality-based practical reasoning. In: Rahwan, I., Moraitis, P. (eds.) ArgMAS 2008. LNCS, vol. 5384, pp. 3–18. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  12. Bench-Capon, T.J.M., Doutre, S., Dunne, P.E.: Audiences in argumentation frameworks. Artificial Intelligence 171(1), 42–71 (2007)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Black, E., Hunter, A.: An inquiry dialogue system. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 19(2), 173–209 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Coste-Marquis, S., Devred, C., Konieczny, S., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.C., Marquis, P.: On the merging of Dung’s argumentation systems. Artificial Intelligence 171(10-15), 730–753 (2007)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Prakken, H.: Coherence and flexibility in dialogue games for argumentation. J. of Logic and Computation 15, 1009–1040 (2005)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Devereux, J., Reed, C.: Strategic argumentation in rigorous persuasion dialogue. In: McBurney, P., Rahwan, I., Parsons, S., Maudet, N. (eds.) ArgMAS 2009. LNCS, vol. 6057, pp. 94–113. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  17. Rahwan, I., Larson, K.: Mechanism design for abstract argumentation. In: 5th Int. Joint Conf. on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, pp. 1031–1038 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Parsons, S., McBurney, P., Sklar, E., Wooldridge, M.: On the relevance of utterances in formal inter-agent dialogues. In: 6th Int. Joint Conf. on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, pp. 1002–1009 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Black, E., Atkinson, K. (2011). Agreeing What to Do. In: McBurney, P., Rahwan, I., Parsons, S. (eds) Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems. ArgMAS 2010. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 6614. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21940-5_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21940-5_2

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-21939-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-21940-5

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics