Group Decision and Negotiation

, Volume 12, Issue 5, pp 415–439 | Cite as

Argumentation-Based Dialogues for Agent Co-Ordination

  • Simon Parsons
  • Peter McBurney


Many techniques for coordinating agents require that the agents communicate, and many of the requisite communications need more than the exchange of a few terse illocutions. In other words they require some form of dialogue. This paper discusses one way to create such dialogues, the use of argumentation, and illustrates the use of this approach in the definition of dialogues about joint plans.


Joint Plan 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Amgoud, L. (1999). “Contribution à l'intégration des préférences dans le raison-nement argumentatif,” Thèse de doctorat, Université Paul Sabatier, Toulouse (in French).Google Scholar
  2. Amgoud, L. and C. Cayrol. (1998). “On the Acceptability of Arguments in Preference-Based Argumentation Framework,” in Proceedings of the 14th Conference Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, 1–7.Google Scholar
  3. Amgoud, L. and C. Cayrol. (2002). “A Reasoning Model Based on the Production of Acceptable Arguments,” Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 34, 197–215.Google Scholar
  4. Amgoud, L., N. Maudet, and S. Parsons. (2000a). “Modelling Dialogues using Argumentation,” in E. Durfee (ed.), Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems. Boston, MA, USA, 31–38.Google Scholar
  5. Amgoud, L., N. Maudet, and S. Parsons. (2002). “An argumentation-Based Semantics for Agent Communication anguages,” in Proceedings of the 15th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence.Google Scholar
  6. Amgoud, L. and S. Parons. (2001). “Agent Dialogues with Conflicting Preferences,” in J.-J. Meyer and M. Tambe (eds.), Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Agent Theories, Architectures and Languages, 1–15.Google Scholar
  7. Amgoud, L., S. Parsons, and N. Maudet. (2000b). “Arguments, Dialogue, and Negotiation,” in W. Horn (ed.), Proceedings of the 14th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Berlin, Germany, 338–342.Google Scholar
  8. Amgoud, L., S. Parsons, and L. Perrussel. (2000c). “An Argumentation Framework Based on Contextual Preferences,” in J. Cunningham (ed.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Pure and Applied Practical Reasoning. London, UK.Google Scholar
  9. Aristotle. (1928). in W. D. Ross (ed.), Topics. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  10. Bratman, M. E., D. J. Israel, and M. E. Pollack. (1988). “Plans and Resource-Bounded Practical Reasoning,” Computational Intelligence 4, 349–355.Google Scholar
  11. Brewka, G. (2002). “Dynanic Argument Systems: A Formal Model of Argumentation Processes Based on Situation Calculus,” Journal of Logic and Computation 11 (2), 257–282.Google Scholar
  12. Dignum, F., B. Dunin-Kplicz, and R. Verbrugge. (2001a). “Agent Theory for Team Formation by Dialogue,” in C. Castelfranchi and Y. Lespérance (eds.), Intelligent Agents VII. Berlin, Germany, 141–156.Google Scholar
  13. Dignum, F., B. Dunin-K?plicz, and R. Verbrugge. (2001b). “Creating Collective Intention Through Dialogue,” Logic Journal of the IGPL 9 (2), 305–319.Google Scholar
  14. Dung, P. M. (1995). “On the Acceptability of Arguments and its Fundamental Role in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Logic Programming and n-person Games,” Artifical Intelligence 77, 321–357.Google Scholar
  15. Eemeren, F. and R. Grootendorst. (1992). Argumentation, Communication and Fallacies: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Mahwah, NJ, USA: LEA.Google Scholar
  16. Elvang-Gørannson, M., P. Krause, and J. Fox. (1993). “Dialectic Reasoning with Inconsistent Information,” in D. Heckerman and A. Mamdani (eds.), Proceedings of the 9th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence. San Mateo, CA, USA, 114–121.Google Scholar
  17. Finin, T., Y. Labrou, and J. Mayfield. (1995). “KQML as an Agent Communication Language,” in J. Bradshaw (ed.), Software Agents. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  18. FIPA. (2001). “Communicative Act Library Specification,” Technical Report XC00037H, Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents.Google Scholar
  19. Grice, H. P. (1975). “Logic and Conversation,” in P. Cole and J. L. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and Semantics III: Speech Acts. New York City, NY, USA: Academic Press, 41–58.Google Scholar
  20. Grosz, B. J. and S. Kraus. (1999). “The Evolution of SharedPlans,” in M. J. Wooldridge and A. Rao (eds.), Foundations of Rational Agency, Vol. 14 of Applied Logic. The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  21. Hamblin, C. L. (1970). Fallacies. London, UK: Methuen.Google Scholar
  22. Hitchcock, D., P. McBurney, and S. Parsons. (2001). “A Framework for Deliberation Dialogues,” in H. V. Hanse, C. W. Tindale, J. A. Blair, and R. H. Johnson (eds.), Proceedings of the 4th Biennial Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation. Windsor, Ontario, Canada.Google Scholar
  23. Hulstijn, J. (2000). “Dialogue Models for Inquiry and Transaction,” PhD. thesis, Universiteit Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  24. Johnson, R. (2000). Manifest Rationality: A Pragmatic Theory of Argument. Mahwah, NJ, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  25. Levin, J. A. and J. A. Moore. (1978). “Dialogue-Games: Metacommunications Structures for Natural Language Interaction,” Cognitive Science 1 (4), 395–420.Google Scholar
  26. Lorenzen, P. and K. Lorenz. (1978). Dialogische Logik. Darmstadt, Germany: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
  27. Loui, R. (1987). “Defeat Among Arguments: A System of Defeasible Inference,” Computational Intelligence 3, 100–106.Google Scholar
  28. MacKenzie, J. D. (1979). “Question-Begging in Non-Cumulative Systems,” Journal of Philosophical Logic 8, 117–133.Google Scholar
  29. Maudet, N. and F. Evrard. (1998). “A Generic Framework for Dialogue Game Implementation,” in Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Formal Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue. University of Twente, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  30. McBurney, P. (2002). “Rational Interaction,” PhD. thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of Liverpool.Google Scholar
  31. McBurney, P. and S. Parsons. (2000). “Risk Agoras: Dialectical Argumentation for Scientific Reasoning,” in C. Boutilier and M. Goldszmidt (eds.), Proceedings of the 15th Conference on Uncertainty in Artifical Intelligence. San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  32. McBurney, P. 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.Google Scholar
  33. McBurney, P. and S. Parsons. (2003). “Dialogue Game Protocols,” in M.-P. Huget (ed.), Agent Communications Languages. Berlin, Germany.Google Scholar
  34. Panzarasa, P., N. R. Jennings, and T. J. Norman. (2002). “Formalizing Collaborative Decision-Making and Practical Reasoning in Multi-Agent Systems,” Journal of Logic and Computation 12 (1), 55–117.Google Scholar
  35. Parsons, S. and P. Giorgini. (1999). “An Approach to Using Degrees of Belief in BDI Agents,” in B. Bouchon-Meunier, R. R. Yager, and L. A. Zadeh (eds.), Information, Uncertainty, Fusion. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  36. Parsons, S. and N. R. Jennings. (1996). “Negotiation through Argumentation – A Preliminary Report,” in Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems, 267–274.Google Scholar
  37. Parsons, S., C. Sierra, and N. R. Jennings. (1998). “Agents that Reason and Negotiate by Arguing,” Journal of Logic and Computation 8 (3), 261–292.Google Scholar
  38. Parsons, S., M. Wooldrige, and L. Amboud. (2002). “An Analysis of Formal Inter-Agent Dialogues,” in C. Castelfranchi and W. L. Johnson (eds.), Proceedings of the 1st International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems. New York, USA, 394–401.Google Scholar
  39. Pinkas, G. and R. P. Loui. (1992). “Reasoning from Inconsistency: A Taxonomy of Principles for Resolving Conflicts,” in Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, 709–719.Google Scholar
  40. Pollock, J. L. (1992). “How to Reason Defeasibly,” Artificial Intelligence 57, 1–42.Google Scholar
  41. Prakken, H. (2000). “On Dialogue Systems with Speech Acts, Arguments, and Counterarguments,” in M. Ojeda-Aciego, M. I. P. de Guzman, G. Brewka, and L. M. Pereira (eds.), Proceedings of 7th European Workshop on Logic in Artificial Intelligence. Berlin, Germany, 224–238.Google Scholar
  42. Prakken, H. (2001). “Relating Protocols for Dynamic Dispute with Logics for Defeasible Argumentation,” Synthese 127, 187–219.Google Scholar
  43. Prakken, H. and G. Sartor. (1997). “Argument-Based Extended Logic Programming with Defeasible Priorities,” Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 7, 25–75.Google Scholar
  44. Prakken, H. and G. Sartor. (1998). “Modelling Reasoning with Precedents in a Formal Dialogue Game,” Artificial Intelligence and Law 6, 231–287.Google Scholar
  45. Reed, C. (1998). “Dialogue Frames in Agent Communications,” in Y. Demazeau (ed.), Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems, 246–253.Google Scholar
  46. Rescher, N. (1977). Dialectics: A Controversy-Oriented Approach to the Theory of Knowledge. Albany, NY, USA: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  47. Riley, P., P. Stone, and M. Veloso. (2001). “Layered Disclosure: Revealing Agents' Internals,” in C. Catelfranchi and Y. Lespérence (eds.), Intelligent Agents VII. Berlin, Germany, 61–72.Google Scholar
  48. Schroeder, M., D. A. Plewe, and A. Raab. (1998). “Ultima Ratio: Should Hamlet Kill Claudius,” in Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Autonomous Agents, 467–468.Google Scholar
  49. Sierra, C. N. R. Jennings, P. Noriega, and S. Parsons. (1998). “A Framework for Argumentation-Based Negotiations,” in M. P. Singh, A. Rao, and M. J. Wooldridge (eds.), Intelligent Agents IV. Berlin, Germany, 177–192.Google Scholar
  50. Simari, G. R. and R. P. Loui. (1992). “A Mathematical Treatment of Defeasible Reasoning and its Implementation,” Artificial Intelligence 53, 125–157.Google Scholar
  51. Singh, M. P. (1998). “Agent Communication Languages: Rethinking the Principles,” in IEEE Computer 31, 40–47.Google Scholar
  52. Singh, M. P. (1999). “A Social Semantics for Agent Communication Languages,” in Proceedings of the IJCA'99 Workshop on Agent Communication Langues, 75–88.Google Scholar
  53. Sycara, K. (1989). “Argumentation: Planning Other Agents' Plans,” in Proceedings of the 11th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 517–523.Google Scholar
  54. Sycara, K. (1990). “Persuasive Argumentation in Negotiation,” Theory and Decision 28, 203–242.Google Scholar
  55. Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Vreeswijk, G. A. W. (1997). “Abstract, Argumentation Systems,” Artificial Intelligence 90, 225–279.Google Scholar
  57. Walton, D. N. and E. C. W. Krabbe. (1995). Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. Albany, NY SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  58. Wooldridge, M. J. (2000a). Reasoning about Rational Agents. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  59. Wooldridge, M. J. (2000b). “Semantic Issues in the Verification of Agent Communication Languages,” Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 3 (1), 9–31Google Scholar
  60. Zabala, S., I. Lara, and H. Geffner. (1999). “Beliefs, Reasons and Moves in a Model for Argumentation Dialogues,” in Proceedings of the Latino-American Conference on Computer Science.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Simon Parsons
    • 1
  • 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