Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Concepts of Optimal Utterance in Dialogue: Selection and Complexity

  • Conference paper
Advances in Agent Communication (ACL 2003)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 2922))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Dialogue protocols have been the subject of considerable attention with respect to their potential applications in multiagent system environments. Formalisations of such protocols define classes of dialogue locutions, concepts of a dialogue state, and rules under which a dialogue proceeds. One important consideration in implementing a protocol concerns the criteria an agent should apply in choosing which utterance will constitute its next contribution: ideally, an agent should select a locution that (by some measure) optimises the outcome. The precise interpretation of optimise may vary greatly depending on the nature and intent of a dialogue area. One option is to choose the locution that results in a minimal length debate. We present a formal setting for considering the problem of deciding if a particular utterance is optimal in this sense and show that this decision problem is both np–hard and co-np–hard.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Amgoud, L., Parsons, S.: Agent dialogues with conflicting preferences. In: Meyer, J.J., Tambe, M. (eds.) ATAL 2001. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2333, pp. 1–14. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Specification and implementation of Toulmin dialogue game. In: Hage, J.C. (ed.) Legal Knowledge Based Systems, pp. 5–20 (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bench-Capon, T.J.M., Dunne, P.E., Leng, P.H.: A dialogue game for dialectical interaction with expert systems. In: Proc. 12th Annual Conf. Expert Systems and their Applications, pp. 105–113 (1992)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Cayrol, C., Doutre, S., Mengin, J.: Dialectical proof theories for the credulous preferred semantics of argumentation frameworks. In: Benferhat, S., Besnard, P. (eds.) ECSQARU 2001. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2143, pp. 668–679. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  5. Conitzer, V., Sandholm, T.: Complexity results about Nash equilibria. Technical Report CMU-CS-02-135, School of Computer Science, Carnegie-Mellon University (May 2002)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Davis, M., Logemann, G., Loveland, D.: A machine program for theorem proving. Communications of the ACM 5, 394–397 (1962)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  7. Davis, M., Putnam, H.: A computing procedure for quantification theory. Journal of the ACM 7, 201–215 (1960)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  8. Dignum, F., Greaves, M. (eds.): Issues in Agent Communication. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Doutre, S., Mengin, J.: Preferred extensions of argumentation frameworks: Query answering and computation. In: Goré, R.P., Leitsch, A., Nipkow, T. (eds.) IJCAR 2001. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2083, pp. 272–288. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  10. Dunne, P.E.: Computability Theory - Concepts and Applications. Ellis-Horwood (1991)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Dunne, P.E.: Prevarication in dispute protocols. In: Proc. Ninth International Conference on A.I. and Law (ICAIL 2003), Edinburgh, June 2003, pp. 12–21. ACM Press, New York (2003)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  12. Dunne, P.E., Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Two party immediate response disputes: Properties and efficiency. Artificial Intelligence 149(2), 221–250 (2003)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  13. Dunne, P.E., McBurney, P.J.: Optimal Utterances in Dialogue Protocols. In: Proc. Second International joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2003), July 2003, pp. 608–615. ACM Press, New York (2003)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. Glazer, J., Rubinstein, A.: Debates and decisions: on a rationale of argumentation rules. Games and Economic Behavior 36(2), 158–173 (2001)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  15. Gordon, T.F.: The Pleadings Game: An Artificial Intelligence Model of Procedural Justice. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Huget, M.-P., Koning, J.-L.: Interaction protocol engineering. In: Huget, M.-P. (ed.) Communication in Multiagent Systems. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2650, pp. 179–193. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  17. Johnson, M.W., McBurney, P., Parsons, S.: When are two protocols the same? In: Huget, M.-P. (ed.) Communication in Multiagent Systems. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2650, pp. 253–268. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  18. Kraus, S.: Strategic negotiation in multiagent environments. MIT Press, Cambridge (2001)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. Liberatore, P.: On the complexity of choosing the branching literal in DPLL. Artificial Intelligence 116, 315–326 (2000)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  20. Lodder, R.: Dialaw: On legal justification and Dialogue Games. PhD thesis, Univ. of Maastricht (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  21. McBurney, P., van Eijk, R., Parsons, S., Amgoud, L.: A dialogue-game protocol for agent purchase negotiations. J. Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems 7(3), 235–273 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. McBurney, P., Parsons, S.: Representing epistemic uncertainty by means of dialectical argumentation. Annals of Mathematics and AI 32(1-4), 125–169 (2001)

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  23. McBurney, P., Parsons, S.: Games that agents play: A formal framework for dialogues between autonomous agents. J. Logic, Language and Information 11, 315–334 (2002)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  24. 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)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  25. McBurney, P., Parsons, S., Wooldridge, M.J.: Desiderata for agent argumentation protocols. In: Proc. First Intern. Joint Conf. on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 402–409. ACM Press, New York (2002)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  26. Parsons, S., Sierra, C.A., Jennings, N.R.: Agents that reason and negotiate by arguing. J. Logic and Computation 8(3), 261–292 (1998)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  27. Parsons, S., Wooldridge, M.J., Amgoud, L.: An analysis of formal inter-agent dialogues. In: Proc. First Intern. Joint Conf. Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 394–401. ACM Press, New York (2002)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  28. Parsons, S., Wooldridge, M.J., Amgoud, L.: Properties and complexity of some formal inter-agent dialogues. J. Logic and Computation 13(3), 347–376 (2003)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  29. Prakken, H.: Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument. Kluwer, Dordrecht (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Reed, C.: Dialogue frames in agent communications. In: Demazeau, Y. (ed.) Proc. 3rd Intern. Conf. Multiagent Systems (ICMAS 1998), pp. 246–253. IEEE Press, Los Alamitos (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Rubinstein, A.: Strategic considerations in pragmatics. In: Economics and Language: Five essays, pp. 37–52. Cambridge University Press, New York (2000)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  32. Vreeswijk, G., 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 (LNAI), vol. 1919, pp. 224–238. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  33. Walton, D.N., Krabbe, E.C.W.: Committment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. SUNY Press, Albany (1995)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dept. of Computer Science, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L69 7ZF, UK

    Paul E. Dunne & Peter McBurney

Authors
  1. Paul E. Dunne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Peter McBurney
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Dept. Information and Computing Sciences, Utrecht University, The Netherlands

    Frank Dignum

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2004 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Dunne, P.E., McBurney, P. (2004). Concepts of Optimal Utterance in Dialogue: Selection and Complexity. In: Dignum, F. (eds) Advances in Agent Communication. ACL 2003. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 2922. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-24608-4_18

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-24608-4_18

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-20769-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-24608-4

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation