Concepts of Optimal Utterance in Dialogue: Selection and Complexity

  • Paul E. Dunne
  • Peter McBurney
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2922)

Abstract

Dialogue protocols have been the subject of considerable attention with respect to their potential applications in multiagent system environments. Formalisations of such protocols define classes of dialogue locutions, concepts of a dialogue state, and rules under which a dialogue proceeds. One important consideration in implementing a protocol concerns the criteria an agent should apply in choosing which utterance will constitute its next contribution: ideally, an agent should select a locution that (by some measure) optimises the outcome. The precise interpretation of optimise may vary greatly depending on the nature and intent of a dialogue area. One option is to choose the locution that results in a minimal length debate. We present a formal setting for considering the problem of deciding if a particular utterance is optimal in this sense and show that this decision problem is both np–hard and co-np–hard.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Amgoud, L., Parsons, S.: Agent dialogues with conflicting preferences. In: Meyer, J.J., Tambe, M. (eds.) ATAL 2001. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2333, pp. 1–14. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Specification and implementation of Toulmin dialogue game. In: Hage, J.C. (ed.) Legal Knowledge Based Systems, pp. 5–20 (1998)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bench-Capon, T.J.M., Dunne, P.E., Leng, P.H.: A dialogue game for dialectical interaction with expert systems. In: Proc. 12th Annual Conf. Expert Systems and their Applications, pp. 105–113 (1992)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cayrol, C., Doutre, S., Mengin, J.: Dialectical proof theories for the credulous preferred semantics of argumentation frameworks. In: Benferhat, S., Besnard, P. (eds.) ECSQARU 2001. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2143, pp. 668–679. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Conitzer, V., Sandholm, T.: Complexity results about Nash equilibria. Technical Report CMU-CS-02-135, School of Computer Science, Carnegie-Mellon University (May 2002)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Davis, M., Logemann, G., Loveland, D.: A machine program for theorem proving. Communications of the ACM 5, 394–397 (1962)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Davis, M., Putnam, H.: A computing procedure for quantification theory. Journal of the ACM 7, 201–215 (1960)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dignum, F., Greaves, M. (eds.): Issues in Agent Communication. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Doutre, S., Mengin, J.: Preferred extensions of argumentation frameworks: Query answering and computation. In: Goré, R.P., Leitsch, A., Nipkow, T. (eds.) IJCAR 2001. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2083, pp. 272–288. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dunne, P.E.: Computability Theory - Concepts and Applications. Ellis-Horwood (1991)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dunne, P.E.: Prevarication in dispute protocols. In: Proc. Ninth International Conference on A.I. and Law (ICAIL 2003), Edinburgh, June 2003, pp. 12–21. ACM Press, New York (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dunne, P.E., Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Two party immediate response disputes: Properties and efficiency. Artificial Intelligence 149(2), 221–250 (2003)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dunne, P.E., McBurney, P.J.: Optimal Utterances in Dialogue Protocols. In: Proc. Second International joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2003), July 2003, pp. 608–615. ACM Press, New York (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Glazer, J., Rubinstein, A.: Debates and decisions: on a rationale of argumentation rules. Games and Economic Behavior 36(2), 158–173 (2001)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gordon, T.F.: The Pleadings Game: An Artificial Intelligence Model of Procedural Justice. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht (1995)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Huget, M.-P., Koning, J.-L.: Interaction protocol engineering. In: Huget, M.-P. (ed.) Communication in Multiagent Systems. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2650, pp. 179–193. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Johnson, M.W., McBurney, P., Parsons, S.: When are two protocols the same? In: Huget, M.-P. (ed.) Communication in Multiagent Systems. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2650, pp. 253–268. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kraus, S.: Strategic negotiation in multiagent environments. MIT Press, Cambridge (2001)MATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Liberatore, P.: On the complexity of choosing the branching literal in DPLL. Artificial Intelligence 116, 315–326 (2000)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lodder, R.: Dialaw: On legal justification and Dialogue Games. PhD thesis, Univ. of Maastricht (1998)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    McBurney, P., van Eijk, R., Parsons, S., Amgoud, L.: A dialogue-game protocol for agent purchase negotiations. J. Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems 7(3), 235–273 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    McBurney, P., Parsons, S.: Representing epistemic uncertainty by means of dialectical argumentation. Annals of Mathematics and AI 32(1-4), 125–169 (2001)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    McBurney, P., Parsons, S.: Games that agents play: A formal framework for dialogues between autonomous agents. J. Logic, Language and Information 11, 315–334 (2002)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    McBurney, P., Parsons, S.: Chance Discovery using dialectical argumentation. In: Terano, T., Nishida, T., Namatame, A., Tsumoto, S., Ohsawa, Y., Washio, T. (eds.) JSAI-WS 2001. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2253, pp. 414–424. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    McBurney, P., Parsons, S., Wooldridge, M.J.: Desiderata for agent argumentation protocols. In: Proc. First Intern. Joint Conf. on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 402–409. ACM Press, New York (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Parsons, S., Sierra, C.A., Jennings, N.R.: Agents that reason and negotiate by arguing. J. Logic and Computation 8(3), 261–292 (1998)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Parsons, S., Wooldridge, M.J., Amgoud, L.: An analysis of formal inter-agent dialogues. In: Proc. First Intern. Joint Conf. Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 394–401. ACM Press, New York (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Parsons, S., Wooldridge, M.J., Amgoud, L.: Properties and complexity of some formal inter-agent dialogues. J. Logic and Computation 13(3), 347–376 (2003)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Prakken, H.: Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument. Kluwer, Dordrecht (1997)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Reed, C.: Dialogue frames in agent communications. In: Demazeau, Y. (ed.) Proc. 3rd Intern. Conf. Multiagent Systems (ICMAS 1998), pp. 246–253. IEEE Press, Los Alamitos (1998)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rubinstein, A.: Strategic considerations in pragmatics. In: Economics and Language: Five essays, pp. 37–52. Cambridge University Press, New York (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Vreeswijk, G., Prakken, H.: Credulous and sceptical argument games for preferred semantics. In: Brewka, G., Moniz Pereira, L., Ojeda-Aciego, M., de Guzmán, I.P. (eds.) JELIA 2000. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1919, pp. 224–238. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Walton, D.N., Krabbe, E.C.W.: Committment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. SUNY Press, Albany (1995)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul E. Dunne
    • 1
  • Peter McBurney
    • 1
  1. 1.Dept. of Computer ScienceUniversity of LiverpoolLiverpoolUK

Personalised recommendations