Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Dialogue Game Protocol for Multi-Agent Argument over Proposals for Action

  • Published:
Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract.

We present the syntax and semantics for a multi-agent dialogue game protocol which permits argument over proposals for action. The protocol, called the Persuasive Argument for Multiple Agents (PARMA) Protocol, embodies an earlier theory by the authors of persuasion over action which enables participants to rationally propose, attack, and defend, an action or course of actions (or inaction). We present an outline of both an axiomatic and a denotational semantics, and discuss implementation of the protocol, in the context of both human and artificial agents.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. K. M. Atkinson T. J. M. Bench-Capon P. McBurney (2004) “Attacks on a presumptive argument scheme in multi-agent systems: pre-conditions in terms of beliefs and desires”, Technical Report ULCS-04-015, Department of Computer Science University of Liverpool UK

    Google Scholar 

  2. K. M. Atkinson T. J. M. Bench-Capon P. McBurney (2004) “Computational representation of persuasive argument”, Technical Report ULCS-04-006, Department of Computer Science University of Liverpool UK

    Google Scholar 

  3. K. M. Atkinson T. J. M. Bench-Capon P. McBurney (2004) “Implementation of a dialogue game for persuasion over action”, Technical Report ULCS-04-005, Department of Computer Science University of Liverpool UK

    Google Scholar 

  4. K. M. Atkinson, T. J. M. Bench-Capon, and P. McBurney. “Justifying practical reasoning”. In F. Grasso, C. Reed, and G. Carenini, (eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument (CMNA 2004), Valencia, Spain, pp. 87-90, 2004.

  5. K. M Atkinson T. J. M. Bench-Capon P. McBurney (2004) “Parmenides: Facilitating democratic debate” R. Traunmüller (Eds) Electronic Government 2004, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 3183 Springer Berlin 313–316

    Google Scholar 

  6. K. M. Atkinson, T. J. M. Bench-Capon, and P. McBurney, “Arguing about cases as practical reasoning”, In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL 2005). ACM Press, New York, USA. In Press.

  7. K. M. Atkinson T. J. M. Bench-Capon S. Modgil (2005) “Value added: Processing information with argumentation”, Technical Report ULCS-05-004, Department of Computer Science University of Liverpool UK

    Google Scholar 

  8. T. J. M. Bench-Capon (2003) ArticleTitle“Persuasion in practical argument using value based argumentation frameworks” J. Logic Comput. 13 IssueID3 429–48 Occurrence Handle10.1093/logcom/13.3.429

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. R-J. Beun R.M. Eijk Particlevan (2004) “A co-operative dialogue game for resolving ontological discrepancies” F. Dignum (Eds) Advances in Agent Communication, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 2922 Springer Berlin, Germany 349–363

    Google Scholar 

  10. P. M. Dung (1995) ArticleTitle“On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games” Artif Intelligence 77 321–357 Occurrence Handle10.1016/0004-3702(94)00041-X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. P. E. Dunne T. J. M. Bench-Capon (2004) “Identifying audience preferences in legal and social domains” F. Galindo M. Takizawa R. Traunmüller (Eds) Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Database and Expert Systems Applications (DEXA 2004), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 3180 Springer Verlag Berlin, Germany 518–527

    Google Scholar 

  12. P. Gárdenfors (1994) “The role of expectations in reasoning” M. Masuch L. Pólos (Eds) Knowledge Representation and Reasoning under Uncertainty: Logic at Work, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 808 Springer Berlin, Germany 1–16

    Google Scholar 

  13. R.Goldblatt, “Topoi: The Categorial Analysis of Logic. North-Holland”, Amsterdum, The Netherlands, 1979.

  14. T. F. Gordon (1994) ArticleTitle“The pleadings game: An exercise in computational dialectics” Artif. Intelligence and Law. 2 239–292 Occurrence Handle10.1007/BF00871972

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. K.M. Greenwood, T.J.M. Bench-Capon, and P.M. McBurney. “Towards a computational account of persuasion in law”, In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on AI and Law (ICAIL-2003), New York, NY, USA, 2003. ACM Press, pp. 22-31, 2003.

  16. J. Habermas (1996) Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy MIT Press Cambridge, MA, USA

    Google Scholar 

  17. C. L. Hamblin (1970) Fallacies Methuen London, UK

    Google Scholar 

  18. H. Kamp U. Reyle (1993) From Discourse to Logic: Introduction to Modeltheoretic Semantics of Natural Language, Formal Logic and Discourse Representation Theory, vol. 2 Kluwer Academic Dordrecht, The Netherlands

    Google Scholar 

  19. Y. Labrou T. Finin Y. Peng (1999) ArticleTitle“Agent communication languages: The current landscape” IEEE Intelligent Syst 14 IssueID2 45–52 Occurrence Handle10.1109/5254.757631

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. M. Luck P. McBurney C. Preist (2003) Agent Technology: Enabling Next Generation Computing. A Roadmap for Agent Based Computing AgentLink II Southampton, UK

    Google Scholar 

  21. P. McBurney S. Parsons (2002) ArticleTitle“Games that agents play: A formal framework for dialogues between autonomous agents” J. Logic, Lang Inf. 11 IssueID3 315–334

    Google Scholar 

  22. P. McBurney and S. Parsons. “A denotational semantics for deliberation dialogues”, In N. R. Jennings, C. Sierra, E. Sonenberg, and M. Tambe, (eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS 2004), pp. 86-93, 2004.

  23. N. Oren, T. Norman, A. Preece, and S. Chalmers, “Policing virtual organisations. In C. Ghidini, P. Giorgini, and W. van der Hoek, (eds.),Proceedings of the 2nd European Conference on Multi Agent Systems (EUMAS 2004), Barcelona, Spain, pp. 499-508, 2004.

  24. C. Perelman L. Olbrechts-Tyteca (1969) The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation University of Notre Dame Press Notre Dame, IN, USA

    Google Scholar 

  25. D. Raven (1996) ArticleTitle“The enculturation of logical practice” Configurations 3 381–425 Occurrence HandleMR1470098

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  26. H. S. Richardson (1994) Practical Reasoning about Final Ends Cambridge University Press Cambridge, UK

    Google Scholar 

  27. J. R. Searle (2001) Rationality in Action MIT Press Cambridge, MA, USA

    Google Scholar 

  28. C. Sierra N.R. Jennings P. Noriega S. Parsons (1998) “A framework for argument based negotiation” A. Rao M. Singh M. Wooldridge (Eds) Intelligent Agents IV, Lecture Notes in Artificial Inteligence 1365 Springer Berlin ,Germany 177–192

    Google Scholar 

  29. V. Tamma, I. Blacoe, B. Lithgow-Smith, and M. Wooldridge. “Serse: Searching for semantic web content”, In Proceedings of the 16th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI-04), Valencia, Spain, 2004.

  30. V. A. M. Tamma and T. J. M. Bench-Capon. “A conceptual model to facilitate knowledge sharing in multi-agent systems. In Proceedings of Autonomous Agents 2001 Workshop on Ontologies in Agent Systems (OAS 2001), Montreal, Canada, pp. 69-76, 2001.

  31. R. D. Tennent, Semantics of Programming Languages, Prentice-Hall: Hemel Hempstead, UK, 1991.

  32. S.E. Toulmin (1976) Knowing and Acting: An Invitation to Philosophy Macmillan New York, NY, USA

    Google Scholar 

  33. D. N. Walton (1998) The New Dialectic: Conversational Contexts of Argument University of Toronto Press Toronto, Ontario, Canada

    Google Scholar 

  34. D. N. Walton E. C. W. Krabbe (1995) Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning SUNY Press Albany, NY, USA

    Google Scholar 

  35. M. J. Wooldridge (2000) Reasoning about Rational Agents MIT Press Cambridge, MA, USA

    Google Scholar 

  36. T. Yuan (2004) Human Computer Debate a Computational Dialectics Approach PhD thesis Leeds Metropolitan University Leeds UK

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

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

    Katie Atkinson, Trevor Bench-Capon & Peter Mcburney

Authors
  1. Katie Atkinson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Trevor Bench-Capon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Peter Mcburney
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Katie Atkinson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T. & Mcburney, P. A Dialogue Game Protocol for Multi-Agent Argument over Proposals for Action. Auton Agent Multi-Agent Syst 11, 153–171 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10458-005-1166-x

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10458-005-1166-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation