Argumentation

, Volume 21, Issue 3, pp 269–289 | Cite as

Retraction and Revocation in Agent Deliberation Dialogs

Article

Abstract

We present a generic denotational semantic framework for protocols for dialogs between rational and autonomous agents over action which allows for retraction and revocation of proposals for action. The semantic framework views participants in a deliberation dialog as jointly and incrementally manipulating the contents of shared spaces of action-intention tokens. The framework extends prior work by decoupling the identity of an agent who first articulates a proposal for action from the identity of any agent then empowered to retract or revoke the proposal, thereby permitting proposals, entreaties, commands, promises, etc., to be distinguished semantically.

Key words

agent communications deliberation dialogs dialog games interaction protocols 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Amgoud, L., N. Maudet and S. Parsons: 2000, ‹Modelling Dialogues Using Argumentation’, in E. Durfee (ed.), Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems (ICMAS 2000), IEEE Press, Boston, MA, pp. 31–38Google Scholar
  2. Austin J. L. (1962) How to do Things with Words. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  3. Bench-Capon T. J. M., Geldard T., Leng P. H. (2000) A Method for the Computational Modelling of Dialectical Argument with Dialogue Games. Artificial Intelligence and Law 8:233–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bratu, M., J. M. Andreoli, O. Boissier and S. Castellani: 2002, ‹A Software Infrastructure for Negotiation within Inter-organisational Alliances’, in J. Padget, D. C. Parkes, N.␣M. Sadeh, O. Shehory and W. E. Walsh (eds.), AMEC-IV: Designing Mechanisms and Systems, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 2531. Springer, Berlin, pp.␣161–179Google Scholar
  5. Colombetti, M. and M. Verdicchio: 2002, ‹An Analysis of Agent Speech Acts as Institutional Actions’, in C. Castelfranchi and W. L. Johnson (eds.), Proceedings of the First International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS 2002), ACM Press, New York, pp. 1157–1164Google Scholar
  6. FIPA: 2002, Communicative Act Library Specification (Standard SC00037J), Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents. Retrieved September 14, 2007 from http://www.fipa. org/specs/fipa00037/SC00037J.html
  7. Gell A. (1998) Art and Agency: An Anthropological Theory. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  8. Gunter C. A. (1992) Semantics of Programming Languages: Structures and Techniques. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  9. Habermas, J.: 1984, The Theory of Communicative Action: Volume 1: Reason and the Rationalization of Society, Heinemann, London (translation by T. McCarthy of: Theorie des Kommunikativen Handelns, Band I, Handlungsrationalitat und gesellschaftliche Rationalisierung, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt, 1981)Google Scholar
  10. Hamblin C. L. (1970) Fallacies. Methuen, LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. Hitchcock, D.: 1991, ‹Some Principles of Rational Mutual Inquiry’, in F. van Eemeren, R.␣Grootendorst, J. A. Blair and C. A. Willard (eds.), Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Argumentation (ISSA 1991), SICSAT, Amsterdam, pp.␣236–243Google Scholar
  12. Jennings N. R., Faratin P., Lomuscio A. R., Parsons S., Wooldridge M., Sierra C. (2001) Automated Negotiation: Prospects, Methods and Challenges. Group Decision and Negotiation 10:199–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Johnson, M. W., P. McBurney and S. Parsons: 2003, ‹When are Two Protocols the Same?’, in M.-P. Huget (ed.), Communication in Multi-Agent Systems: Agent Communication Languages and Conversation Policies, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 2650. Springer, Berlin, pp. 253–268Google Scholar
  14. Kamp H., Reyle U. (1993) From Discourse to Logic: Introduction to Modeltheoretic Semantics of Natural Language, Formal Logic and Discourse Representation Theory. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  15. Krabbe E. C. W. (2001) The Problem of Retraction in Critical Discussion. Synthese 127:141–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mac Lane S. (1998) Categories for the Working Mathematician. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. McBurney P., Parsons S. (2002) Games that Agents Play: A Formal Framework for Dialogues between Autonomous Agents. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 11:315–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. McBurney P. and S. Parsons: 2005a, ‹A Denotational Semantics for Deliberation Dialogues’, in I. Rahwan, P. Moraitis and C. Reed (eds.), Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 3366. Springer, Berlin, pp. 162–175Google Scholar
  19. McBurney P. and S. Parsons: 2005b, ‹Locutions for Argumentation in Agent Interaction Protocols’, in R. M. van Eijk, M.-P. Huget and F. Dignum (eds.), Developments in Agent Communication, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 3396. Springer, Berlin, pp. 227–244Google Scholar
  20. McBurney P., van Eijk R. M., Parsons S., Amgoud L. (2003) A Dialogue-Game Protocol for Agent Purchase Negotiations. Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 7:235–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Searle J. (1969) Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  22. Singh M. P. (1999) An Ontology for Commitments in Multiagent Systems: Toward a Unification of Normative Concepts. Artificial Intelligence and Law 7:97–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Viroli, M. and A. Ricci: 2004, ‹Instructions-Based Semantics of Agent-Mediated Interaction’, in N. R. Jennings, C. Sierra, E. Sonenberg and M. Tambe (eds.), Proceedings of the Third International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS 2004), ACM Press, New York, pp. 102–109Google Scholar
  24. Walton D. N., Krabbe E. C. W. (1995) Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. State University of New York Press, Albany, NYGoogle Scholar
  25. Wooldridge M. J. (2000) Semantic Issues in the Verification of Agent Communication Languages. Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 3:9–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wooldridge M. J., Jennings N. R., Kinny D. (2000) The Gaia Methodology for Agent-Oriented Analysis and Design. Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 3:285–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of LiverpoolLiverpoolUK
  2. 2.Department of Computer and Information ScienceBrooklyn College, City University of New YorkBrooklynUSA

Personalised recommendations