An Argument-Based Agent System with KQML as an Agent Communication Language

  • Yoshirou Toda
  • Masashi Yamashita
  • Hajime Sawamura
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2132)


Argumentation = Computation + Communication (A = 2C). Argumentation is a novel and prominent apparatus to attain both communication and computation in a unifying manner since they are intrinsically related to each other. In this paper, we propose an argument-based agent system which has two unique features: (i) Reconciliation in argumentation based on the dialectical logics, and (ii) Cooperation in argumentation. In doing so, we introduce KQML-like agent communication language which is augmented by some performatives proper to the communication with which agents can make arguments, better or stronger arguments, and make cooperation to reach an agreement. We evaluate our system using argumentative dialogues.


argumentation agent dialectics dialectical logic Aufheben KQML 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Benthem, J. van et al. (eds.): Logic and Argumentation, Proc. of the Colloquium’ Logic and Argumentation’, Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, 1994.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chang, M. K. and Woo, C. C.: A Speech-Act based Negotiation Protocol: Design, Implementation, and Test Use, ACM Transactions on Information Systems, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 360–382, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dunn, J. M.: Relevance Logic and Entailment, in Gabbay, D. and Guenthner, F. (eds.): Handbook of Philosophical Logic, Vol. III, D. Reidel Publishing Company, pp. 117–224, 1986.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Edwards, P. (ed.): The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Vol. 1, The Macmillan Company and The Free Press, 1967.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Henkmans, A. F. S., et al.: Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory, A Handbook of Historical Backgrounds and Contemporary Developments, Lawrence Erlbaum, 1996.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ferber, J.: Multi-Agent Systems, Addison-Wesley, 1999.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Finn, T., Labrou, Y. and Mayfield, J.: KQML as an Agent Communication Language, in Bradshaw, M. (ed.): Software Agents, AAAI Press/The MIT Press, pp. 291–316, 1997.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kowalski, R. A. and Toni, F.: Argument and Reconciliation, FGCS Workshop on Application of Logic Programming to Legal Reasoning, ICOT, pp. 9–16, 1994.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Krause, P., Ambler, S., Goransson, M. E. and Fox, J.: A Logic of Argumentation for Reasoning under Uncertainty, Computational Intelligence, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 113–131, 1995.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    McGill, V. J. and Parry, W. T.: The Unity of Opposites: A Dialectical Principle, Science and Society, Vol. 12, pp. 418–444, 1948.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Müller, H. J. and Dieng, R. (eds.): Computational Conflicts, Springer, 2000.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Parsons, S., Sierra, C. and Jennings, N.: Agents that Reason and Negotiate by Arguing, J. of Logic and Computation, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 261–292, 1998.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Prakken, H. and Sartor, G.: Argument-based Extended Logic Programming with Defeasible Priorities, J. of Applied Non-Classical Logics, Vol. 7, No. 1–2, pp. 25–75, 1997.zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rescher, N.: Dialectics-a controversy-oriented approach to the theory of knowledge-, State University of New York Press, 1977.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Routley, R. and Meyer, R.: Dialectical Logic, Classical Logic, and the Consistency of the World, Studies in Soviet Thought, Vol. 16, pp. 1–25, 1976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sawamura, H., Yamashita, M., Inagaki, M. and Umeda, Y.: Agents Meet Dialectics, Proc. of International ICSC Symposium on Multi-Agents and Mobile Agents in Virtual Organizations and E-Commerce (MAMA2000), ICSC Academic Press, pp. 354–360, 2000.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sawamura, H., Umeda, Y. and Meyer, R. K.: Computational Dialectics for Argument-based Agent Systems, Proc. of the Fourth International Conference on MultiAgents Systems (ICMAS2000), IEEE Computer Society, pp. 271–278, 2000.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sawamura, H. and Maeda, S.: An Argumentation-Based Model of Multi-Agent Systems, in Kangassalo, H., Jaakkola, H. and Kawaguchi, E. (editors): Information Modelling and Knowledge Bases XII, IOS Press, pp. 137–150, 2001.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Toulmin, S.: The Uses of Argument, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1958.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tessier, C., Chaudron, L. and Müller, H. J. (eds.): Conflicting Agents, Kluwer Academic Pub., 2001.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Umeda, Y. and Sawamura, H.: Towards an Argument-based Agent System, Proc of 3rd Int. Conf on Knowledge-Based Intelligent Information Engineering Systems, IEEE, pp. 30–33, 1999.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Umeda, Y., Yamashita, M., Inagaki, M. and Sawamura, H.: Argumentation as a Social Computing Paradigm, Proc. of 3rd Pacific RIM Int. Workshop on Multi-Agents (PRIMA2000), Lecture Notes in AI, Vol. 1881, pp. 46–60, 2000.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yoshirou Toda
    • 1
  • Masashi Yamashita
    • 1
  • Hajime Sawamura
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Information Engineering and Graduate School of Science and TechnologyNiigata UniversityNiigataJapan

Personalised recommendations