Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Collective Decision-Making Process to Compose Divergent Interests and Perspectives

  • OriginalPaper
  • Published:
Artificial Intelligence and Law Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We propose in this paper DIAL, a framework for inter-agents dialogue, which formalize a collective decision-making process to compose divergent interests and perspectives. This framework bounds a dialectics system in which argumentative agents play and arbitrate to reach an agreement. For this purpose, we propose an argumentation-based reasoning to manage the conflicts between arguments having different strengths for different agents. Moreover, we propose a model of argumentative agents which justify the hypothesis to which they commit and take into account the commitments of their interlocutors according to their reputations. In the scope of our dialectics system, a third agent is responsible of the final decision outcome which is taken by resolving the conflict between two players according to their competences and the advanced arguments.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Leila Amgoud and Claudette Cayrol (2002). A Reasoning Model based on the Production of Acceptable Arguments. Annals of Maths and AI 34(1–3):197–215

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Amgoud, L., Maudet, N., and Parsons, S. (2002). An Argumentation-based Semantics for Agent Communication Languages. In Proceedings of the 15th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 38–42. IOS Press, Amsterdan.

  • Amgoud, L. and Parsons, S. (2001). Agent dialogues with conflicting preferences. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Agent Theories, Architectures and Languages.

  • Bench-Capon, T.J.M. (2002). Value based Argumentation Frameworks. In Proceedings of Non Monotonic Reasoning, 444–453.

  • Bench-Capon T.J.M. (2003). Persuasion in practical argument using value based argument frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation 13(3):429–448

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Bentahar, J., Moulin, B., and Chaib-draa, B. (2004) Specifying and Implementing a Persuasion Dialogue Game using Commitments and Arguments. In Proceedings of the workshop ArgMAS in AAMAS, 130–148.

  • Perelman, C. and Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1958). Traité de l’Argumentation - La Nouvelle Rhétorique. Presses Universitaires de France.

  • Callon, M. Lascoumes, P. and Barthe, Y. (2001). Agir dans un monde in- certain. Seuil.

  • Castelfranchi, C. and Falcone, R. (1998). Principles of Trust in Mas: Cognitive Anatomy, Social Importance, and Quantification. In Proceedings of ICMAS’98, 72–79.

  • Dignum, F., Dunin-Keplicz, B., and Verbrugge, R. (2001). Agent Theory for Team Formation by Dialogue. In Agent Theories Architectures and Languages, number LNAI 1986 in Intelligent Agents VII, 150–166, Springer-Verlag.

  • Phan Minh Dung (1995). On the Acceptability of Arguments and its Fundamental Role in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Logic Programming and n-person Games. Artifical Intelligence 77(2):321–357

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Hamblin, C.L. (1970). Fallacies. Methuen.

  • Kakas, A.C. and Moratis, P. (2002). Argumentative Agent Deliberation, Roles and Context. In Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 70. Elsevier.

  • Labrie, M., Chaib-draa, B., and Maudet, N. (2003). Diagal: A tool for analyzing and modelling commitment-based dialogues between agents. In Proceedings of the 16th Canadian Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 2671 of LNAI, Halifax, June 2003, 353–369, Springer-Verlag.

  • Maudet, N. (2001). Modéliser les Conventions des Interactions langagiéres: la Contribution des jeux de dialogues. PhD thesis, Université Paul Sabatier, Toulouse, Mai.

  • McBurney P. and Parsons S. (2001). Intelligent Systems to Support Deliberative Democracy in Environmental Regulation. Information and Communications Technology Law 10(1):33–43

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • P. McBurney and S. Parsons (2002). Games that Agents Play: A Formal Frame-work for Dialogues between Autonomous Agents. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 11(3):315–334

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Morge, M. (2004). Computer Supported Collaborative Argumentation. In Proceedings of 4th workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument (CNMA04).

  • Morge, M. (2005). Système dialectique multi-agents pour l’aide la concertation. PhD thesis, ENS Mines, Saint Etienne, Juin 2005.

  • Prakken, H. (2000). On Dialogue Systems with Speech Acts, Arguments, and Counterarguments. In Proceedings of the 7th European Workshop on Logic for Artificial Intelligence (JELIA’2000), number 1919 in Lecture Notes in AI, 224–238, Springer Verlag.

  • Schweimeier, M.S.R. (2002). Notions of Attack and Justified Arguments for Extended Logic Programs. In Proceedings of the 15th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI02), 536–540, Amsterdam, IOS Press.

  • Searle, J.R. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge University Press.

  • Singh, M. (2000). A Social Semantics for Agent Communication Languages. In Proceedings of the IJCAI Workshop on Agent Communication Languages. Springer-Verlag.

  • Walton, D. and Krabbe, E. (1995). Commitment in Dialogue. SUNY Press.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Laboratoire d’Informatique Fondamentale de Lille, Batiment, M3 - F-59655, Villeneuve D'ascq, Cedex, France

    Maxime Morge

Authors
  1. Maxime Morge
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maxime Morge.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Morge, M. Collective Decision-Making Process to Compose Divergent Interests and Perspectives. Artif Intell Law 13, 75–92 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-006-9008-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-006-9008-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation