How Agents Alter Their Beliefs After an Argumentation-Based Dialogue

  • Simon Parsons
  • Elizabeth Sklar
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4049)


In our previous work on dialogue games for agent interaction, an agent’s set of beliefs (Σ) and an agent’s “commitment store” (CS) — the set of locutions uttered by the agent — play a crucial role. The usual assumption made in this work is that the set of beliefs is static through the course of a dialogue, while the commitment store is dynamic. While the assumption of static beliefs is reasonable during the progress of the dialogue, it seems clear that some form of belief change is appropriate once a dialogue is complete. What form this change should take is our subject in this paper.


Knowledge Base Multiagent System Autonomous Agent Belief Revision Static Belief 
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., 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
  2. 2.
    Chaib-Draa, B., Dignum, F.: Trends in agent communication language. Computational Intelligence 18(2), 89–101 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    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
  4. 4.
    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)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Flores, R.A., Kremer, R.C.: To commit or not to commit. Computational Intelligence 18(2), 120–173 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gabbay, D.M., Woods, J.: More on non-cooperation in Dialogue Logic. Logic Journal of the IGPL 9(2), 321–339 (2001)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gabbay, D.M., Woods, J.: Non-cooperation in Dialogue Logic. Synthese 127(1-2), 161–186 (2001)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gärdenfors, P.: Knowledge in Flux. MIT Press, Cambridge (1988)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hamblin, C.L.: Mathematical models of dialogue. Theoria 37, 130–155 (1971)MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kraus, S., Sycara, K., Evenchik, A.: Reaching agreements through argumentation: a logical model and implementation. Artificial Intelligence 104(1–2), 1–69 (1998)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    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
  12. 12.
    Parsons, S., McBurney, P., Wooldridge, M.: Some preliminary steps towards a meta-theory for formal inter-agent dialogues. In: Rahwan, I. (ed.) Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Argumentation in Multiagent Systems, New York (2004)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    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
  14. 14.
    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
  15. 15.
    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
  16. 16.
    Schroeder, M., Plewe, D.A., Raab, A.: Ultima ratio: should Hamlet kill Claudius? In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Autonomous Agents, pp. 467–468 (1998)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sklar, E., Parsons, S.: Towards the application of argumentation-based dialogues for education. In: Jennings, N.R., Sierra, C., Sonenberg, E., Tambe, M. (eds.) Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems. IEEE Press, Los Alamitos (2004)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sklar, E., Parsons, S., Davies, M.: When is it okay to lie? a simple model of contraditcion in agent-based dialogues. In: Proceedings of the First Workshop on Argumentation in Muliagent Systems (2004)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sycara, K.: Argumentation: Planning other agents plans. In: Proceedings of the Eleventh Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 517–523 (1989)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tennent, R.D.: Semantics of Programming Languages. International Series in Computer Science. Prentice Hall, Hemel Hempstead (1991)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    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

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Simon Parsons
    • 1
  • Elizabeth Sklar
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer and Information ScienceBrooklyn College, City University of New YorkBrooklyn, New YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations