Logics of Argumentation for Chance Discovery

  • Simon Parsons
  • Peter McBurney
Part of the Advanced Information Processing book series (AIP)

Summary

If multiple autonomous entities — agents — are involved in chance discovery and management, then the agents involved may disagree as to what constitutes a chance event, and what action, if any, to take in response. One approach to agent communication in this situation is to insist that agents not only send messages, but also support them with reasons why those messages are appropriate. This is argumentation-based communication. In this chapter, we review some of our work on argumentation-based communication, discussing the issues we consider to be important in developing systems for argumentation-based communication between agents in chance discovery and management domains.

Keywords

Defend Undercut Tocol 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 11.1
    Amgoud L, Cayrol C (1998) On the acceptability of arguments in preference-based argumentation framework. Proc. 14th Conf. Uncertainty in AI, pp. 1–7Google Scholar
  2. 11.2
    Amgoud L, Cayrol C (2002) A reasoning model based on the production of acceptable arguments. Annals of Mathematics and AI, 34: 197–215Google Scholar
  3. 11.3
    Amgoud L, Maudet N, Parsons S (2000) Modelling dialogues using argumentation. In E. Durfee, editor, Proc. 4th Intern. Conf. on Multi-Agent Systems, pp. 31–38, Boston, MA, IEEE Press, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  4. 11.4
    Amgoud L, Maudet N, Parsons S (2002) An argumentation-based semantics for agent communication languages. In Proc. 15th European Conf. on AI Google Scholar
  5. 11.5
    Amgoud L, Parsons S (2001) Agent dialogues with conflicting preferences. In J.-J. Meyer and M. Tambe, editors, Proc. 8th Intern. Workshop on Agent Theories, Architectures and Languages, pp. 1–15Google Scholar
  6. 11.6
    Amgoud L, Parsons S, and Maudet N (2000) Arguments, dialogue, and negotiation. In W. Horn, editor, Proc. 14th European Conf. on AI, pp. 338–342, Belin, Germany, IOS Press, Amsterdam, The NetherlandGoogle Scholar
  7. 11.7
    Dignum F, Dunin-Kgplicz B, and Verbrugge R (2001) Agent theory for team formation by dialogue. In C. Castelfranchi and Y. Lespérance, editors, Intelligent Agents VII, pp. 141–156, Berlin, Germany, Springer Verlag, Heidelberg, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  8. 11.8
    Dignum F, Dunin-Kgplicz B, and Verbrugge R (2001) Creating collective intention through dialogue. Logic Journal of the IGPL, 9 (2): 305–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 11.9
    Finin T, Labrou Y, and Mayfield J (1997) KQML as an agent communication language. Invited chapter in J. Bradshaw, editor, Software Agents. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  10. 11.10
    FIPA. Communicative Act Library Specification. Technical Report XC00037H, Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents, 10 August 2001.Google Scholar
  11. 11.11
    Grice HP (1975) Logic and conversation. In P. Cole and J. L. Morgan, editors, Syntax and Semantics III: Speech Acts, pp. 41–58. Academic Press, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  12. 11.12
    Grosz BJ, Kraus S (1999) The evolution of SharedPlans. In M. J. Wooldridge and A. Rao, editors, Foundations of Rational Agency, volume 14 of Applied Logic. Kluwer, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  13. 11.13
    Hamblin CL (1970) Fallacies. Methuen, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  14. 11.14
    Hitchcock D, McBurney P, Parsons S (2001) A framework for deliberation dialogues. In H. V. Hansen, C. W. Tindale, J. A. Blair, and R. H. Johnson, editors, Proc. 4th Biennial Conf. Ontario Soc. Study of Argumentation (OSSA 2001), Windsor, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  15. 11.15
    Johnson R (2000) Manifest Rationality: A Pragmatic Theory of Argument. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJGoogle Scholar
  16. 11.16
    Krause P, Ambler S, Elvang-Gorannson M, Fox J (1995) A logic of argumentation for reasoning under uncertainty. Computational Intelligence, 11 (1): 113–131MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 11.17
    Levin JA, Moore JA (1978) Dialogue-games: metacommunications structures for natural language interaction. Cognitive Science, 1 (4): 395–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 11.18
    MacKenzie JD (1979) Question-begging in non-cumulative systems. J. Philosophical Logic, 8: 117–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 11.19
    Maudet N, Evrard F (1998) A generic framework for dialogue game implementation. In Proc. 2nd Workshop on Formal Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue,University of Twente, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  20. 11.20
    McBurney P (2002) Rational Interaction. PhD thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of LiverpoolGoogle Scholar
  21. 11.21
    McBurney P, Parsons S (2001) Chance discovery using dialectical argumentation. In T. Terano, T. Nishida, A. Namatame, S. Tsumoto, Y. Ohsawa, and T. Washio, editors, New Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence: Joint JSAI 2001 Workshop Post Proceedings, LNAI 2253, pp. 414–424. Springer, Berlin, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  22. 11.22
    McBurney P, Parsons S (2001) Representing epistemic uncertainty by means of dialectical argumentation. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence,32(1–4):125169Google Scholar
  23. 11.23
    McBurney P, Parsons S (2002) Games that agents play: A formal framework for dialogues between autonomous agents. J. Logic, Language, and Information, 11(3):315334Google Scholar
  24. 11.24
    Parsons S, Jennings NR (1996) Negotiation through argumentation–a preliminary report. In Proc. 2nd Intern. Conf on Multi-Agent Systems, pages 267–274Google Scholar
  25. 11.25
    Parsons S, Sierra S, Jennings NR (1998) Agents that reason and negotiate by arguing. Logic and Computation, 8 (3): 261–229MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 11.26
    Parsons S, Wooldridge M, Amgoud L (2002) An analysis of formal interagent dialogues. In C. Castelfranchi and W. L. Johnson, editors, Proc. First Intern. Joint Conf. on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS 2002), pp. 394–401, New York, NY, ACM Press, New York, NYCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 11.27
    Reed C (1998) Dialogue frames in agent communications. In Y. Demazeau, editor, Proc. 3rd Intern. Conf. on Multi-Agent Systems, pp. 246–253. IEEE Press, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  28. 11.28
    Riley R, Stone P, Veloso M (2001) Layered disclosure: Revealing agents’ internals. In C. Castelfranchi and Y. Lespérance, editors, Intelligent Agents VII, pp. 61–72, Berlin, Germany, Springer Verlag, Heidelberg, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  29. 11.29
    Roos N, Teije A, Bos A, Witteveen C (2002) An analysis of multi-agent diagnosis. In C. Castelfranchi and W. L. Johnson, editors, Proc. First Intern. Joint Conf. on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS 2002), Bologna, Italy, pp.986–987, New York City, NY, USA ACM Press, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  30. 11.30
    Schroeder M, Plewe DA, Raab A (1998) Ultima ratio: should Hamlet kill Claudius. In Proc. 2nd Intern. Conf. on Autonomous Agents, pp. 467–468Google Scholar
  31. 11.31
    Sierra C, Jennings NR, Noriega P, Parsons S (1998) A framework for argumentation-based negotiations. In M. P. Singh, A. Rao, and M. J. Wooldridge, editors, Intelligent Agents IV, pp. 177–192, Berlin, Germany, Springer Verlag, Heidelberg, Germany (1998)Google Scholar
  32. 11.32
    Singh MP (1998) Agent communication languages: Rethinking the principles. In IEEE Computer 31, pp. 40–47Google Scholar
  33. 11.33
    Singh MP (1999) A social semantics for agent communication languages. In Proc. IJCAI’99 Workshop on Agent Communication Languages, pp. 75–88Google Scholar
  34. 11.34
    Sycara K (1989) Argumentation: Planning other agents’ plans. Proc. 11th Joint Conf. on AI, pp. 517–523Google Scholar
  35. 11.35
    Walton DN and Krabbe ECW (1995) Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. SUNY Press, Albany, NYGoogle Scholar
  36. 11.36
    Wooldridge MJ (2000) Reasoning about Rational Agents. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  37. 11.37
    Wooldridge MJ (2000) Semantic issues in the verification of agent communication languages. J. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 3(1):9–31Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Simon Parsons
    • 1
    • 2
  • Peter McBurney
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer and Information ScienceBrooklyn College, City University of New YorkBrooklynUSA
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of LiverpoolLiverpoolUK

Personalised recommendations