Liberalizing Protocols for Argumentation in Multi-agent Systems

  • Gerard A. W. Vreeswijk
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4049)


This paper proposes a liberalized version of existing truth-finding protocols for argumentation, such as the standard two-agent immediate-response protocol for computing the credulous acceptance of conclusions in an argument system. In the new setup agents decide autonomously which issues need to be discussed, when to query other agents, when to keep on querying other agents, and when to settle for an answer. In this way, inter-agent disputes are regulated by the agents themselves, rather than by following an outlined protocol. The paper concludes with a prototype implementation and with a comparison of related work on conversation analysis and computational dialectic.


Multiagent System Autonomous Agent Priority Queue Belief Base Conversation Analysis 
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.
    Baroni, P., Giacomin, M., Guida, G.: Extending abstract argumentation systems theory. Artificial Intelligence 120(2), 251–270 (2000)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beun, R.-J.: On the generation of coherent dialogue: A computational approach. Pragmatics & Cognition 9(1), 37–68 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bracciali, A., Demetriou, N., Endriss, U., Kakas, A., Lu, W., Mancarella, P., Sadri, F., Stathis, K., Terreni, G., Toni, F.: The KGP model of agency for global computing: Computational model and prototype implementation. In: Priami, C., Quaglia, P. (eds.) GC 2004. LNCS, vol. 3267, pp. 342–369. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chajewska, U., Halpern, J.Y.: Defining explanation in probabilistic systems. In: Proc. of the 13th Conf. on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 62–71 (1997)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chesñevar, C.I., Maguitman, A.G., Loui, R.P.: Logical models of argument. ACM Computing Surveys 32(4), 337–383 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dastani, M., de Boer, F., Dignum, F., Meyer, J.-J.: Programming agent deliberation: An approach illustrated using the 3APL language. In: Proc. of the Second Int. Conf. on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2003) (2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dimopoulos, Y., Nebel, B., Toni, F.: Finding admissible and preferred arguments can be very hard. In: Proc. of the 7th Int. Conf. on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pp. 53–61. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (2000)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Doutre, S., Mengin, J.: On sceptical vs. credulous acceptance for abstract argument systems. In: Tenth International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning (NMR 2004), pp. 134–139 (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Everitt, N., Fisher, A.: Modern Epistemology: A New Introduction. McGraw-Hill, New York (1995)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gärdenfors, P.: Knowledge in Flux: Modelling the dynamics of epistemic states. MIT Press, London (1988)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hamblin, C.L.: Mathematical models of dialogue. Theoria 37, 130–155 (1971)zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hindriks, K.V., de Boer, F.S., van der Hoek, W., Meyer, J.-J.C.: Agent programming in 3apl. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 2(4), 357–401 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lin, F., Shoham, Y.: Argument systems: A uniform basis for nonmonotonic reasoning. In: Brachman, R.J., Levesque, H.J., Reiter, R. (eds.) Proc. of the 1st Int. Conf. on Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pp. 245–255. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco (1989)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    McBurney, P., Parsons, S.: Representing epistemic uncertainty by means of dialectical argumentation. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 32(1), 125–169 (2001)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    McBurney, P., Parsons, S., Wooldridge, M.: Desiderata for agent argumentation protocols. In: Proc. of the First Int. Joint Conf. on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 402–409. ACM Press, New York (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Moraitis, P., Spanoudakis, N.I.: Combining gaia and jade for multi-agent systems development. In: Proc. of the 17th European Meeting on Cybernetics and Systems Research (EMCSR 2004) (April 2004)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Parsons, S., Wooldridge, M., Amgoud, L.: Properties and complexity of some formal inter-agent dialogues. The Journal of Logic and Computation 13(3), 347–376 (2003)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pearl, J.: Probabilistic Reasoning in Intelligent Systems: Networks of Plausible Inference, 2nd edn. Morgan Kaufmann, Inc., San Francisco (1994)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pollock, J.L.: Knowledge and Justification. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1974)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pollock, J.L.: Cognitive Carpentry. A Blueprint for How to Build a Person. MIT Press, Cambridge (1995)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pollock, J.L.: Implementing defeasible reasoning. In: The Computational Dialectics Workshop, at FAPR 1996, June 3-7, 1996, Bonn. Cf (1996),
  22. 22.
    Prakken, H., Vreeswijk, G.A.W.: Logics for defeasible argumentation. In: Gabbay, D.M., et al. (eds.) Handbook of Philosophical Logic, pp. 219–318. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2002)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Prakken, H.: Relating protocols for dynamic dispute with logics for defeasible argumentation. In: Rahman, S., Rückert, H. (eds.) New Perspectives in Dialogical Logics, vol. 127, pp. 187–219. Synthese (2001)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rao, A.S.: Integrated agent architecture: Execution and recognition of mental-states. In: Cavedon, L., Wobcke, W., Rao, A. (eds.) PRICAI-WS 1996. LNCS, vol. 1209, pp. 159–173. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Searle, J.R.: Conversation. In: Searle, J.R., et al. (eds.) (On) Searle on Conversation, pp. 7–30. John Benjamins, Amsterdam (1992)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Stathis, K., Kakas, A., Lu, W., Demetriou, N., Endriss, U., Bracciali, A.: Prosocs: A platform for programming software agents in computational logic. In: Müller, J., Petta, P. (eds.) Proc. of the 4th Int. Symposium From Agent Theory to Agent Implementation (AT2AI 2004) (April 2004)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tanenbaum, A.S.: Operating Systems: Design and Implementation, 2nd edn. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1997)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Taylor, J.A., Carletta, J., Mellish, C.: Requirements for belief models in co-operative dialogue. User Modelling and User-Adapted Interaction 6, 23–68 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Toulmin, S.: The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1985)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Voulgaris, S., Jelasity, M., van Steen, M.: A Robust and Scalable Peer-to-Peer Gossiping Protocol. In: Moro, G., Sartori, C., Singh, M.P. (eds.) AP2PC 2003. LNCS, vol. 2872, pp. 47–58. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Vreeswijk, G., Hulstijn, J.: A free-format dialogue protocol for multi-party inquiry. In: Ginzburg, J., Vallduví, E. (eds.) Proc. of the Eighth Int. Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue (Catalog 2004), pp. 273–279 (2004) Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Vreeswijk, G.A.W., 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, vol. 1919, pp. 239–253. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Vreeswijk, G.A.W.: Abstract argumentation systems. Artificial Intelligence 90, 225–279 (1997)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Vreeswijk, G.A.W.: Liberalizing protocols for argumentation in multi-agent systems. In: Proc. of the 4th Int. Joint Conf. on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, pp. 1259–1260. ACM Press, New York (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gerard A. W. Vreeswijk
    • 1
  1. 1.Dept. of Computer ScienceUtrecht UniversityThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations