Agent Dialogue as Partial Argumentation and Its Fixpoint Semantics
Dialogue and argumentation are basic components of MAS , and many models for them have been studied so far (e. g., ,  for argumentation, and , , ,  for dialogue systems). Those two are closely related to each other , and apparently the latter seems to be a special case of the former or one aspect of dialogue. However, it is not so clear how they are related to each other or simply how dialogue is different from argumentation. In this paper, we will consider an intrinsic relationship between them from a formal perspective.
KeywordsArgumentation dialogue agreement fixpoint semantics
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 2.Amgoud, L., Maudet, N., Parsons, S.: Modeling dialogues using argumentation. In: ICMAS, pp. 31–38 (2000)Google Scholar
- 5.McBurney, P., Parsons, S.: Risk agoras: Dialectical argumentation for scientific reasoning. In: Proceedings of the 16th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI 2000), pp. 371–379 (2000)Google Scholar
- 6.Parsons, S., Wooldridge, M., Amgoud, L.: Properties and complexity of some formal inter-agent dialogues. J. Logic Computat 13(3) (2003)Google Scholar
- 8.Prakken, H., Vreeswijk, G.: Logical systems for defeasible argumentation. In: Gabbay, D., Guenther, F. (eds.) Handbook of Philosophical Logic, pp. 219–318. Kluwer, Dordrecht (2002)Google Scholar
- 9.Reed, C.: Dialogue frames in agent communication. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Multi Agent Systems (ICMAS 1998), pp. 246–253 (1998)Google Scholar
- 11.Suzuki, T.: Agent dialogue as partial argumentation and its fixpoint semantics. Master Thesis, Niigata University (2007) (in Japanese)Google Scholar
- 12.Takahashi, T., Sawamura, H.: A logic of multiple-valued argumentation. In: Proceedings of the Third International Joint Conference on Autono mous Agents and Multi Agent Systems (AAMAS 2004), pp. 800–807. ACM, New York (2005)Google Scholar
- 13.Walton, D.: The New Dialectic: Conversational Contexts of Argument. Univ. of Toronto Press (1998)Google Scholar