A First Step towards Argumentation Dialogues for Discovery

  • Xiuyi Fan
  • Francesca Toni
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7132)


We present a formal model for two-agent discovery dialogues. The model allows agents to collectively discover a realization for a shared goal, using argumentation dialogues to exchange information. This information is in the form of rules, assumptions, and contraries of assumptions as in Assumption-based Argumentation (ABA). With dialogues, agents jointly build arguments and construct shared ABA frameworks. We define successful discovery dialogues as those giving admissible arguments that realize the shared goal. The main novelty of this paper is the modelling of the buttom-up relation between utterances. This new relation helps building “higher level” arguments from existing “lower level” supports, which we deem essential for discovery.


Shared Goal Move Function Goal Realization Argumentation Framework Actual Argument 
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.
    Black, E., Hunter, A.: An inquiry dialogue system. JAAMAS 19, 173–209 (2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bondarenko, A., Dung, P.M., Kowalski, R., Toni, F.: An abstract, argumentation-theoretic approach to default reasoning. AIJ 93(1-2), 63–101 (1997)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dung, P.M., Kowalski, R.A., Toni, F.: Assumption-based argumentation. In: Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 25–44. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dung, P.M., Kowalski, R.A., Toni, F.: Dialectic proof procedures for assumption-based, admissible argumentation. AIJ 170, 114–159 (2006)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fan, X., Toni, F.: Assumption-based argumentation dialogues. In: Proc. IJCAI (2011)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fan, X., Toni, F.: Conflict resolution with argumentation dialogues – Extended abstract. In: Proc. AAMAS (2011)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fisher, M.: An open approach to concurrent theorem-proving. In: Parallel Processing for Artificial Intelligence, pp. 209–230. Elsevier/North (1997)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    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
  9. 9.
    McBurney, P., Parsons, S.: Dialogue games for agent argumentation. In: Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 261–280. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Parsons, S., McBurney, P., Sklar, E., Wooldridge, M.: On the relevance of utterances in formal inter-agent dialogues. In: Proc. AAMAS, pp. 47–62 (2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Prakken, H.: Coherence and flexibility in dialogue games for argumentation. JLC 15, 1009–1040 (2005)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Prakken, H.: Formal systems for persuasion dialogue. Knowledge Eng. Review 21(2), 163–188 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rybakov, V.: Logic of knowledge and discovery via interacting agents - decision algorithm for true and satisfiable statements. Inf. Science 179, 1608–1614 (2009)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Walton, D., Krabbe, E.: Commitment in Dialogue: Basic concept of interpersonal reasoning. State University of New York Press, Albany NY (1995)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Xiuyi Fan
    • 1
  • Francesca Toni
    • 1
  1. 1.Imperial College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations