New Types of Inter-agent Dialogues

  • Eva Cogan
  • Simon Parsons
  • Peter McBurney
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4049)


Much work in the area of argumentation-based dialogues between agents has been based on the influential taxonomy of dialogue types developed by Walton and Krabbe. In this paper we re-examine the Walton and Krabbe framework, concentrating on the preconditions for different types of dialogue and analyzing them in a systematic way. Doing so identifies a number of new kinds of dialogue missing from the framework. We discuss some of the more interesting of these and develop protocols for them.


Autonomous Agent Information Seek Dialogue Protocol Commitment Store Inquiry Dialogue 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Amgoud, L.: Contribution a l’integration des préferences dans le raisonnement argumentatif. PhD thesis, Université Paul Sabatier, Toulouse (July 1999)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C.: On the acceptability of arguments in preference-based argumentation framework. In: Proceedings of the 14th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 1–7 (1998)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Amgoud, L., Maudet, N., Parsons, S.: Modelling dialogues using argumentation. In: Durfee, E. (ed.) Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems, Boston, MA, USA, pp. 31–38. IEEE Press, Los Alamitos (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bench-Capon, T.J.M., Coenen, F.P., Orton, P.: Argument-based explanation of the British Nationality Act as a logic program. Computers, Law and AI 2(1), 53–66 (1993)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Broersen, J., Dastani, M., Hulstijn, J., Huang, Z., der van Torre, L.: The BOID architecture: conflicts between beliefs, obligations, intentions and desires. In: Müller, J.P., Andre, E., Sen, S., Frasson, C. (eds.) Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Autonomous Agents, Montreal, Canada, pp. 9–16. ACM Press, New York (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dignum, F., Dunin-Kȩplicz, B., Verbrugge, R.: Agent theory for team formation by dialogue. In: Castelfranchi, C., Lespérance, Y. (eds.) Seventh Workshop on Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages, Boston, USA, pp. 141–156 (2000)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence 77, 321–357 (1995)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dunne, P.E.: Prevarication in dispute protocols. In: Sartor, G. (ed.) Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on AI and Law (ICAIL 2003), pp. 12–21. ACM Press, New York (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gabbay, D.M., Woods, J.: More on non-cooperation in Dialogue Logic. Logic Journal of the IGPL 9(2), 321–339 (2001)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gabbay, D.M., Woods, J.: Non-cooperation in Dialogue Logic. Synthese 127(1-2), 161–186 (2001)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Girle, R.: Commands in Dialogue Logic. In: Gabbay, D.M., Ohlbach, H.J. (eds.) FAPR 1996. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1085, pp. 46–260. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gordon, T.F.: The Pleadings Game: An exercise in computational dialectics. Artificial Intelligence and Law 2, 239–292 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Greenwood, K., Bench-Capon, T., McBurney, P.: Structuring dialogue between the People and their representatives. In: Traunmüller, R. (ed.) EGOV 2003. LNCS, vol. 2739, pp. 55–62. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hamblin, C.L.: Fallacies. Methuen and Co. Ltd., London (1970)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hulstijn, J.: Dialogue Models for Inquiry and Transaction. PhD thesis, Universiteit Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands (2000)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kraus, S., Sycara, K., Evenchik, A.: Reaching agreements through argumentation: a logical model and implementation. Artificial Intelligence 104(1–2), 1–69 (1998)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    McBurney, P., Parsons, S.: Representing epistemic uncertainty by means of dialectical argumentation. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 32(1–4), 125–169 (2001)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Parsons, S., McBurney, P., Wooldridge, M.: The mechanics of some formal inter-agent dialogues. In: Dignum, F.P.M. (ed.) ACL 2003. LNCS, vol. 2922, pp. 329–348. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Parsons, S., Sierra, C., Jennings, N.R.: Agents that reason and negotiate by arguing. Journal of Logic and Computation 8(3), 261–292 (1998)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Parsons, S., Wooldridge, M., Amgoud, L.: An analysis of formal inter-agent dialogues. In: 1st International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems. ACM Press, New York (2002)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Parsons, S., Wooldridge, M., Amgoud, L.: On the outcomes of formal inter-agent dialogues. In: 2nd International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems. ACM Press, New York (2003)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Parsons, S., Wooldridge, M., Amgoud, L.: Properties and complexity of formal inter-agent dialogues. Journal of Logic and Computation 13(3), 347–376 (2003)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Prakken, H.: Relating protocols for dynamic dispute with logics for defeasible argumentation. Synthese 127, 187–219 (2001)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Reed, C.: Dialogue frames in agent communications. In: Demazeau, Y. (ed.) Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems, pp. 246–253. IEEE Press, Los Alamitos (1998)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sklar, E., Parsons, S.: Towards the application of argumentation-based dialogues for education. In: Sierra, C., Sonenberg, E. (eds.) Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems. IEEE Press, Los Alamitos (2004)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sycara, K.: Argumentation: Planning other agents plans. In: Proceedings of the Eleventh Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 517–523 (1989)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sycara, K.: Persuasive argumentation in negotiation. Theory and Decision 28, 203–242 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Walton, D.N., Krabbe, E.C.W.: Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. State University of New York Press, Albany (1995)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Yuan, T., Moore, D., Grierson, A.: Educational human-computer debate: A computational dialectics approach. In: Carenini, G., Grasso, F., Reed, C. (eds.) Proceedings of the Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eva Cogan
    • 1
  • Simon Parsons
    • 1
  • Peter McBurney
    • 2
  1. 1.Deptartment of Computer and Information ScienceBrooklyn College City University of New YorkBrooklynUSA
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of LiverpoolLiverpoolUK

Personalised recommendations